A collection of articles discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana, written by Michael James and forming an extension of his main website, www.happinessofbeing.com.

Friday, 20 October 2017

As I explained at the beginning of my previous article, Upadēśa Undiyār: Tamil text, transliteration and translation, Nāṉ Yār?, Upadēśa Undiyār and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu are the three texts in which Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the most clear, coherent, comprehensive and systematic manner, which is why these are the three texts that I cite most frequently on this blog, and therefore friends often ask me for my complete translation of each of them. My translation of Nāṉ Yār? has been available on my website for many years, and for a long time I have been meaning to post my complete translations of Upadēśa Undiyār and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu there also, but somehow I did not get round to doing so till recently, when I finally decided that I should put it off no longer. Therefore having posted my translation of Upadēśa Undiyār in my previous article, in this one I give a fresh translation of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, which is a carefully revised and refined version of all my earlier translations of it.
Of all the works of Bhagavan, Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is arguably the most fundamental and important text, and I think it would be no exaggeration to say that unless one has imbibed to a considerable extent the full import of these forty-two verses (two maṅgalam verses and forty verses of the main text) by carefully studying and reflecting deeply on the meaning of each of them and the close and coherent connections between the ideas expressed in them, and of course by trying as much as possible to follow the simple path of self-investigation that he teaches in them, it is not possible for one to adequately grasp and appreciate the real depth and radical import of his teachings, because many of the key principles of his teachings are expressed nowhere as clearly and coherently as they are in these verses.

For example, in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he makes it abundantly clear why self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is the only means by which we can eradicate our ego (the first person or subject) and hence all its progeny (all second and third persons or objects), because this ego, which he describes in verse 25 as a ‘formless phantom’, is a false self-awareness — an awareness of ourself as a body composed of five sheaths (as he points out in verses 5 and 24), whereas what we actually are is not any such transient phenomenon but just pure, infinite, indivisible, eternal and immutable self-awareness (as he points out in verses 12 and 13) — and it comes into seeming existence and stands only by grasping the form of a body as itself, and it nourishes and sustains itself by grasping other forms (that is, by being aware of anything other than itself), so it will dissolve and disappear only when it tries to grasp itself (that is, only when it investigates itself so keenly that it ceases to be aware of anything else). He also makes it clear (for example, in verses 6, 7, 14, 23 and 26) that everything else seems to exist only when we are aware of ourself as this ego or mind, because all other things (all phenomena) are forms that we perceive only when we perceive ourself as a form (as he says in verses 4 and 5), so when this ego does not exist nothing else exists, and hence investigating what this ego is is giving up everything (as he says in verse 26).

Since we seem to be this ego whenever we are aware of anything other than ourself (that is, any forms or phenomena of any kind whatsoever), we cannot eradicate this ego so long as we cling to awareness of anything else, and hence the only way to eradicate it is to cling to awareness of ourself alone, as he very clearly implies in verse 25. What then remains is only pure self-awareness, which is what we always actually are, and the nature of which is to be aware of nothing other than itself, as he implies, for example, in verses 11, 12, 13 and 31. Therefore since everything else is just an illusory appearance that seems to exist only when we seem to be this ego, and since this ego will cease to exist only when we investigate it, the only truly worthwhile enterprise is for us to investigate who or what we actually are.

What he teaches us in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is supplemented and supported by what he teaches us Nāṉ Yār? and Upadēśa Undiyār, and also to a lesser extent in his other writings and in numerous answers that he gave to those who came to him seriously seeking the way to put an end to all suffering, deficiency and dissatisfaction, which have been recorded more or less accurately in various other books, but Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu shines as the core and crest-jewel of his teachings, being the quintessence of all of them (which are in turn the quintessence of all vēdānta philosophy and of all that is metaphysically true in other philosophies, religions or systems of belief).

As in Upadēśa Undiyār, in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the style of sūtras or aphorisms, so though each verse is relatively short, it is packed with deep meaning and is rich in implications, and hence they require explanation in order for us to understand and appreciate them more deeply and completely. However no explanation of them should be considered complete, because no matter how much we may study and reflect on their meaning, we can always find fresh depth of meaning and wealth of implications in them, and consequently our understanding of them can become more clear, as I often find while answering questions or replying to comments on this blog, because when I cite and apply these verses in different contexts my understanding of them is deepened and enriched.

English translation: When Muruganar asked, ‘So that we may be saved, reveal to us the nature of reality and the means by which to attain [reach or join] it’, the noble Ramana, because he is free from the delusion of the unreal world, joyfully and with certainty composed Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu [Forty Verses on What Exists].

English translation: If what exists were not, would existing awareness exist? Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’? Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: If uḷḷadu [what is or what exists] were not, would uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as uḷḷadu, does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu exist? (2) Other than uḷḷadu, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance or reality] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] uḷḷa-poruḷ, which is called ‘uḷḷam’ [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free self-awareness] alone is thinking [of it, meditating on it, contemplating it, investigating it or revering it]. Know [or be aware] [of it as it is].

English translation: Pure-hearted people who have intense fear of death will take refuge at the feet of God, who is devoid of death and birth, as a fortress. By their refuge, they undergo death. Will those who are deathless be associated with the thought of death?

Explanatory paraphrase: Pure-hearted people who have intense fear of death will take refuge at [or surrender to] the feet of Mahēśaṉ [the Great Lord, Śiva or God], who is devoid of death and birth, [depending upon him] as [their protective] fortress. By their [taking] refuge [or as soon as they take refuge], their ego dies [and what remains is only their real nature, which is immortal awareness]. Will those who are [thereby] deathless be associated [ever again] with the thought of death?

English translation: Because we see the world, accepting one fundamental that has a power that becomes many is certainly the one best option. The picture of names and forms, the one who sees, the cohesive screen, and the pervading light – all these are he, who is oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: Because we [as the ego] see the world, accepting one mudal [first thing, origin, source, base or fundamental reality] that has a power that becomes many [appearances, namely ourself as the ego, the seer or perceiver, and all the manifold phenomena that constitute this or any other world that we may see or perceive] is certainly the one best option. The picture of names and forms [namely the world and whatever other phenomena appear in the mind], the one who sees [this picture] [namely the ego], the cohesive screen [namely the mind as the background on which it appears], and the pervading light [namely the mind as the reflected light of awareness, which is what illumines its appearance] — all these are he [the one original thing], who is oneself [one’s real nature].

English translation: Each religion initially accepts three fundamentals. Contending ‘Only one fundamental stands as three fundamentals’, ‘Three fundamentals are always actually three fundamentals’, is only so long as the ego exists. Destroying ‘I’, standing in the state of oneself is best.

Explanatory paraphrase: Each religion [or theistic system of belief] initially accepts three fundamentals [namely the soul, world and God]. Contending that only one fundamental stands as [these] three fundamentals or that [these] three fundamentals are always actually three fundamentals is [possible] only so long as the ego exists. [By] destroying ‘I’ [the ego], standing in the [real] state of oneself is best.

English translation: What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘An unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving the world and investigating oneself, one and two ceasing, that state in which ‘I’ has perished is agreeable to all.

Explanatory paraphrase: What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘[No, it is] an unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving [all thought about] the world and investigating [or knowing] oneself, [thereby] putting an end to [all disputes about] one and two [non-duality and duality], that state in which ‘I’ [the ego] has [thereby] perished is agreeable to all.

English translation: If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How? Can the seen be otherwise than the eye? The eye is oneself, the infinite eye.

Explanatory paraphrase: If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms, and how [to do so]? Can what is seen be otherwise [or of a different nature] than the eye [the awareness that sees or perceives it]? [Therefore forms can be perceived only by an ‘eye’ or awareness that perceives itself as a form, namely the ego or mind, which always perceives itself as the form of a body.] The [real] eye is oneself [one’s real nature, which is pure self-awareness], the infinite [and hence formless] eye [so it can never see any forms or phenomena, which are all finite].

English translation: The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body, is there a world? Say, leaving the body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

Explanatory paraphrase: The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and what is described both as the darkness of self-ignorance and as the will, the totality of the ego’s vāsanās (propensities, inclinations or urges), which are the seeds that sprout as its likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Say, without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

English translation: The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else. Those five sense-impressions are impressions to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there a world besides the mind?

Explanatory paraphrase: The world is a form [composed] of five [kinds of] sense-impressions [sights, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations], not anything else. Those five [kinds of] sense-impressions are impressions [respective] to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone [or since one thing, the mind] perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind?

English translation: Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole.

Explanatory paraphrase: Though the world and awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely the ego or mind] arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by [that rising and subsiding] awareness [the mind]. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [that] awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].

English translation: Whoever worships in whatever form giving whatever name, that is the way to see that substance in name and form. However, investigating the reality of oneself, dissolving in the reality of that true substance, becoming one alone is seeing in reality. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Whoever worships [it] in whatever form giving [it] whatever name, that is the way to see that [nameless and formless] poruḷ [the real substance, brahman, the ultimate reality or God] in name and form. However, [by] investigating [or knowing] the reality of oneself, [and by thereby] dissolving [or subsiding] in the reality of that true poruḷ, becoming one [with it] alone is seeing [it] in reality. Know [or be aware].

English translation: Dyads and triads exist always holding one thing. If one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will cease to exist. Only those who have seen have seen the reality. See, they will not be confused.

Explanatory paraphrase: Dyads [pairs of opposites] and triads [the three factors of transitive knowledge or awareness, namely the perceiver, the perceived and the perceiving] exist [by] always holding [or depending on] one thing [namely the ego, in whose view alone they seem to exist]. If [by looking keenly at oneself] one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will cease to exist [because their support and foundation, the ego, will itself cease to exist]. Only those who have seen [this cessation of all dyads and triads along with their root, the ego] have seen the reality. See, they will not be confused.

English translation: Leaving ignorance, knowledge does not exist; leaving knowledge, that ignorance does not exist. Only the knowledge that knows oneself, who is the first, as to whom are that knowledge and ignorance, is knowledge.

Explanatory paraphrase: Without ignorance [of other things], knowledge [of them] does not exist; without knowledge [of them], that ignorance [of them] does not exist. Only the knowledge [or awareness] that knows [the reality of] oneself [the ego], who is the first [to appear], [by investigating] to whom are that knowledge and ignorance [of other things], is [real] knowledge [or awareness].

English translation: Not knowing oneself, who knows, knowing other things is ignorance; besides, is it knowledge? When one knows oneself, the support for knowledge and the other, knowledge and ignorance will cease.

Explanatory paraphrase: Without knowing oneself [the ego], who knows [everything else], knowing other things is ignorance; except [that], is it knowledge? When one knows [the reality of] oneself [the ego], the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for knowledge and the other [ignorance], knowledge and ignorance [of everything else] will cease [because the reality of the ego is just pure self-awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure self-awareness the ego will no longer seem to exist, and hence all its knowledge and ignorance will cease to exist along with it].

English translation: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually knowledge. That which knows is not real knowledge. Since one shines without another for knowing or for causing to know, oneself is knowledge. One is not void. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [about anything other than itself] is actually aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. That which knows [or is aware of anything other than itself, namely the ego] is not real aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. Since one [one’s real nature] shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. One is not void [emptiness, desolation, nothingness or non-existence]. Know [or be aware].

English translation: Oneself, who is awareness, alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ignorance. Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real?

Explanatory paraphrase: Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]. Even [that] ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as [besides, apart from or as other than] oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real? [In other words, though the ego or mind, which is the false awareness that sees itself as numerous phenomena, is ignorance and unreal, the real substance that appears as it is only oneself, who is true knowledge or pure awareness, so what actually exists is not the ego or mind but only oneself.]

English translation: If the first person exists, second and third persons will exist. If, oneself investigating the reality of the first person, the first person ceases to exist, second and third persons coming to an end, the nature that shines as one alone is oneself, the state of oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: If the first person [the ego] exists, second and third persons [everything else] will exist. If the first person ceases to exist [by] oneself investigating the reality of the first person, second and third persons will come to an end, and [what then remains alone, namely] the nature [selfness, essence or reality] that shines as one [undivided by the appearance of these three persons or ‘places’] alone is oneself, the [real] state [or nature] of oneself.

English translation: Past and future stand holding the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. The present is the only one. Not knowing the reality of now, trying to know the past or future is trying to count without one.

Explanatory paraphrase: Past and future stand holding [or depending upon] the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. [Therefore] the present is the only one [the only time that actually exists] [alternatively this sentence can be interpreted as meaning: the present alone [is all these three times]; the present alone [exists]; or [there is] only the present] [so the implication of all these interpretations is that there are not three times, namely the past, present and future, but only one, namely the present, which alone is what seems to be these three]. [Hence] without knowing the reality of today [the present moment, now], trying to know the past or future is [like] trying to count [calculate or evaluate] without [knowing the value of] one.

English translation: When we investigate, except we, where is time, where is place? If we are a body, we will be ensnared in time and place. Are we a body? Since we are the one, now, then and always, the one in place, here, there and everywhere, there is we, we. Time and place do not exist.

Explanatory paraphrase: When we investigate [ourself], except we, where is time and where is place? If we are a body, we will be ensnared in time and place. [But] are we a body? Since we are the [same] one [without any change], now, then and always, the [same] one in [each] place, here, there and everywhere, there is [only] we, [the timeless and placeless] we. Time and place do not exist.

English translation: For those who do not know themself, for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is only the extent of the body; for those who have known themself within the body, oneself, ‘I’, shines without limit. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

English translation: For those who do not have knowledge, for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know, reality is the extent of the world; for those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the support for the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know [their real nature], reality is [limited to] the extent of [the forms that constitute] the world, [whereas] for those who have known [their real nature], reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

English translation: Only for those who do not have discernment of the root of fate and will is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known themself, who is the one origin for fate and will, have discarded them. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?

Explanatory paraphrase: Only for those who do not have vidhi-mati-mūla-vivēkam [ability to distinguish or discern the root of fate (vidhi) and will (mati), namely the ego] is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known [the reality of] themself [the ego], who is the one origin [cause or foundation] for fate and will, have [thereby] discarded them [because the ego as such does not actually exist, since its reality is not what it seems to be but just pure self-awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure self-awareness the appearance of the ego will be dissolved forever, and thus one will have discarded not only the ego but also its fate and will]. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?

English translation: Leaving oneself, who sees, oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision. Only one who sees oneself, the origin of oneself, is one who has seen God, because the origin, oneself, going, oneself is not other than God.

Explanatory paraphrase: Neglecting [ignoring or not investigating] oneself [the ego], who sees [things other than oneself], oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision [a mind-constituted image, phenomenon or appearance]. Only one who sees oneself [one’s real nature], the origin [base or foundation] of oneself [one’s ego], is one who has seen God, because oneself [one’s real nature], [which alone is what remains] when oneself [one’s ego], the origin [root or foundation of all other things], goes, is not other than God.

English translation: If one asks what is the truth of many texts that say ‘oneself seeing oneself’, ‘seeing God’: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible to see, how to see God? Becoming food is seeing.

Explanatory paraphrase: If anyone asks what is the truth of many texts that talk of ‘oneself seeing oneself’ and ‘seeing God’ [the reply is]: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible [for oneself] to see [oneself], how [is oneself] to see God [who is the real nature of oneself]? Becoming food [to God] is seeing [both oneself and God]. [In other words, the ego being swallowed and consumed entirely by the infinite light of pure self-awareness is alone real seeing.]

English translation: Consider, except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind?

Explanatory paraphrase: Consider, except by turning [bending or folding] mati [the mind or intellect] back within [and thereby] completely immersing [embedding or fixing] it in pati [the Lord or God], who shines [as pure awareness] within that mind giving light [of awareness] to the mind, how to fathom [or investigate and know] God by the mind?

English translation: This body does not say ‘I’. No one says ‘In sleep I do not exist’. After one thing, ‘I’, rises, everything rises. Contemplate by a subtle mind where this ‘I’ rises.

Explanatory paraphrase: This body does not say ‘I’ [that is, it is not aware of itself as ‘I’]. No one says ‘In sleep I do not exist’ [even though one was then not aware of this or any other body]. [Therefore neither this nor any other body can be what I actually am, but in waking and dream an awareness rises as ‘I am this body’.] After one thing [called] ‘I’ [namely the ego, the awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] rises, everything rises. Contemplate [investigate, discern, determine or ascertain] by nuṇ mati [a subtle, refined, sharp, keen, acute, precise, meticulous and discerning mind or intellect] where this ‘I’ rises.

English translation: The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. Know that this is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, the soul, the subtle body, the ego, this wandering and the mind.

Explanatory paraphrase: The jaḍa [insentient] body does not say ‘I’; sat-cit [being-awareness] does not rise; [but] in between [these two] one thing [called] ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body. Know that this [the spurious adjunct-mixed self-awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] is cit-jaḍa-granthi [the knot (granthi) formed by the entanglement of awareness (cit) with an insentient (jaḍa) body, binding them together as if they were one], bandha [bondage], jīva [life or soul], the subtle body, ahandai [the ego], this saṁsāra [wandering, revolving, perpetual movement, restless activity, worldly existence or the cycle of birth and death] and manam [the mind].

English translation: Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If it seeks, it will take flight. Investigate.

Explanatory paraphrase: [By] grasping form [that is, by projecting and perceiving the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] the formless phantom-ego comes into existence [rises into being or is formed]; [by] grasping form [that is, by holding on to that body as itself] it stands [endures, continues or persists]; [by] grasping and feeding on form [that is, by projecting and perceiving other forms or phenomena] it grows [spreads, expands, increases, ascends, rises high or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form [a body that it had projected and perceived as itself in one state], it grasps [another] form [another body that it projects and perceives as itself in its next state]. If it seeks [examines or investigates] [itself], it will take flight [because it has no form of its own, and hence it cannot seem to exist without grasping the forms of other things as itself and as its food or sustenance]. Investigate [this ego] [or know thus].

English translation: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.

Explanatory paraphrase: If the ego comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable self-awareness] comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure self-awareness actually exists, so everything else seems to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless the ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] the ego itself is everything [because it is the original seed or embryo, which alone is what expands as everything else]. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything [because the ego will cease to exist if it investigates itself keenly enough, and when it ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it].

English translation: The state in which one exists without ‘I’ rising is the state in which we exist as that. Without investigating the place where ‘I’ rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which ‘I’ does not rise? Without reaching, say, how to stand in the state of oneself, in which oneself is that?

Explanatory paraphrase: The state in which one exists without ‘I’ [the ego] rising is the state in which we exist as that [brahman, the ultimate reality and infinite whole, the nature of which is pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by the appearance of anything else]. Without investigating the place [namely one’s fundamental self-awareness] where [from which or in which] ‘I’ rises, how to reach [achieve or take refuge in] the annihilation of oneself [the ego], [the state] in which ‘I’ does not rise? [In other words, the only way to annihilate the ego is to investigate oneself, the source from which it rises, because only when one investigates oneself will one see oneself as one actually is, and only when one sees oneself as one actually is will one forever cease mistaking oneself to be the ego, the false rising and subsiding ‘I’.] [And] without reaching [or taking refuge in the annihilation of one’s ego], say, how to stand [stop, stay or abide] in the [real] state of oneself, in which oneself is that?

English translation: Like sinking wanting to see something that has fallen in water, sinking within restraining speech and breath by a sharpened mind it is necessary to know the place where the rising ego rises. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Like sinking [submerging, immersing or plunging] wanting [needing or in order] to see [find or discover] something that has fallen in water, sinking [submerging, immersing, diving, plunging or piercing] within [oneself] restraining speech and breath by kūrnda mati [a sharpened, pointed, keen, acute, penetrating and discerning mind or intellect] it is necessary to know the place [namely one’s real nature, which is pure self-awareness] where [from which or in which] the rising ego rises. Know [or be aware].

English translation: Not saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of knowledge. Instead, thinking ‘not this, I am that’ is an aid; is it investigation?

Explanatory paraphrase: Without saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking [submerging, immersing, diving, plunging or piercing] mind where one rises as ‘I’ is alone the path of jñāna [the means to experience jñāna, real knowledge or pure awareness, which is one’s true nature]. Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ is an aid, [but] is it vicāra [investigation (in the sense of self-investigation)]?

English translation: As soon as the mind reaches the heart inwardly investigating who am I, when he who is ‘I’ dies, one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’. It is the entire substance, the substance that is oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: As soon as the mind reaches the heart [its core and essence, which is pure self-awareness] [by] inwardly investigating who am I, when [thereby] he who is ‘I’ [the ego] dies, one thing [or the one] appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’ [the ego]. It is poruḷ-pūṉḏṟam [the entire substance, whole reality or pūrṇa-vastu, which is eternal and unchanging], the poruḷ [substance or vastu] that is oneself.

English translation: For those who are happiness composed of that, which rose destroying themself, what one exists for doing? They do not know anything other than themself; who can conceive their state as ‘like this’?

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who are [blissfully immersed in and as] tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as ‘I am I’] destroying themself [the ego], what one [action] exists for doing? They do not know [or are not aware of] anything other than themself; [so] who can [or how to] conceive their state as ‘[it is] like this’?

English translation: When the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of oneself knowing oneself as ‘what?’ and being, thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to non-existence of strength, because that alone is always seated as oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: When the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of oneself knowing oneself [by investigating] what [am I] and [thereby] being [as one is], thinking ‘I am that [brahman], not this [body or mind]’ is due to non-existence [destitution or deficiency] of strength [or lack of clarity of understanding], because that [brahman] alone [or that itself] is always seated [calmly] as oneself.

English translation: Saying ‘I do not know myself’, ‘I have known myself’, is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object, are there two selves? Because being one is the truth, the experience of everyone.

Explanatory paraphrase: Saying [either] ‘I do not know myself’ [or] ‘I have known myself’ is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself viṣaya [an object, something known as other than oneself, the knower], are there two selves [a knowing self and a known self]? Because being one is the truth, [as is known by] the experience of everyone. [That is, since we always experience ourself as one, we are never not aware of ourself, so ātma-jñāna (self-knowledge or self-awareness) is not something that we are yet to attain but is our very nature, and hence what is called the attainment of ātma-jñāna is actually not a gain of anything but a loss of everything along with its root, the ego, which is merely a false awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), and when the ego is lost there is no one left to say ‘I have known myself’, because what remains is only our real nature, which is pure, infinite, eternal and immutable self-awareness.]

English translation: Not standing firmly knowing the substance, which always exists for everyone as nature, in the mind that merges within, quarrelling saying ‘It exists’, ‘It does not exist’, ‘Form’, ‘Formless’, ‘One’, ‘Two’, ‘Neither’, is delusion-mischief.

English translation: Being knowing the substance, which exists as accomplished, is accomplishment. All other accomplishments are just accomplishments achieved in dream; if one wakes up leaving dream, are they real? Will those who, standing in the real state, have left unreality be deluded? Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Being [as one actually is] knowing poruḷ [the one real substance, which is oneself], which exists as siddham [what is always accomplished], is [real] siddhi [accomplishment]. All other siddhis [such as the aṣṭa-siddhis, eight kinds of paranormal powers that some people try to achieve by meditation or other yōga practices] are just siddhis achieved [or experienced] in dream; if one wakes up leaving [this] dream, are they real? Will those who, standing [firmly] in the real state [of pure self-awareness], have left unreality [or illusion, namely the unreal states of waking and dream] be deluded [by such unreal siddhis]? Know.

English translation: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No, we are that’ will be just a good aid for us to stand as that. Since we stand as that, why always thinking ‘We are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’?

Explanatory paraphrase: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’ will be just a good aid for [reminding and encouraging] us to stand [firmly] as that. [However] since we [already] stand [abide or constantly exist] as that, why [should we be] always thinking ‘We are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’ [that is, does one need to always think ‘I am a man’ in order to be aware of oneself as a man]? [Therefore instead of just thinking ‘I am not this body, I am that’, we should look keenly at ourself to see what we actually are, because only when we see what we actually are will we stand firmly as that.]

English translation: Even the contention that declares, ‘Duality in spiritual practice, non-duality in attainment’, is not true. Both when one is eagerly searching and when one has found oneself, who indeed is one other than the tenth man?

Explanatory paraphrase: Even the contention that declares, ‘Duality [is real] in spiritual practice, [and] non-duality [becomes real only] in attainment’, is not true [because even when one is seeking to know one’s real nature, what actually exists is only oneself and not anything else]. Both when one is eagerly searching [for the missing tenth man] and when one has found oneself [to be him], who indeed is one other than the tenth man? [Here daśamaṉ, ‘the tenth man’, refers to the supposedly missing man in the analogy of the ten foolish men who, after fording a river, each counted the other nine but forgot to count himself, and therefore concluded that one of them was missing. Just as each of them was actually the tenth man even while they were anxiously searching for him, we are never actually anything other than the one reality that we are seeking to know, so just as all that each of the ten men needed was to count himself, all that we need is to look keenly at ourself, because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that we alone exist and are therefore eternally non-dual.]

English translation: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. When one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer of action, doership will depart and all the three actions will slip off. The state of liberation, which is eternal.

Explanatory paraphrase: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. [However] when one knows oneself [as one actually is] by investigating who is the doer of action, [the ego, which is what seemed to do actions and to experience their fruit, will thereby be eradicated, and along with it its] kartṛtva [doership] [and its bhōktṛtva, experiencership] will depart and [hence] all [its] three karmas [its āgāmya (actions that it does by its own free will), sañcita (the heap of the fruits of such actions that it is yet to experience) and prārabdha (destiny or fate, which is the fruits that have been allotted for it to experience in its current life] will slip off. [This is] the state of mukti [liberation], which is eternal [being what actually exists even when we seem to be this ego].

English translation: Only so long as one says ‘I am a person in bondage’, thoughts of bondage and liberation. When one looks at oneself as who is the person in bondage, when oneself, the one who is eternally liberated, remains as accomplished, if thought of bondage will not remain, will thought of liberation henceforth remain?

Explanatory paraphrase: Only so long as one says [that is, only so long as one experiences oneself as] ‘I am a person in bondage’ [will there be] thoughts of bandha [bondage] and mukti [liberation]. When one looks at [observes, examines or scrutinises] oneself [to see] who is the person in bondage, and when [thereby] oneself, the one who is eternally liberated, [alone] remains as siddham [what is firmly established or always accomplished], since thought of bondage will not remain, will thought of liberation henceforth remain?

English translation: If it is said that liberation that one will experience is three, form, formless, form-formless, I will say: know that the ego-form, which distinguishes form, formless, form-formless, being destroyed is liberation.

Explanatory paraphrase: If it is said that mukti [liberation] that one will experience [or that one will attain, or that will happen] is of three kinds, with form, without form, or either with form or without form [that is, a state in which one can alternate back and forth between being a form or being formless], I will say: know that [only] destruction of the ego-form [the form-bound ego], which distinguishes [these three kinds of liberation], with form, without form, or either with form or without form, is mukti.

733 comments:

If ‘I’ is unreal, then its being under the sway of maya is an illusion

Maya means ‘what is not’, but as long it seems to exist, it gives us unending troubles. Bhagavan used to say that mind itself is maya, and therefore whatever our mind projects and experiences is also nothing but maya. This maya will always keep us confused in various ways. I also had a confusion in April 2014, which prompted me to write to Michael:

In the beginning we should have been in the state of jnana (assuming that apparently we are in the grips of maya or delusion currently). Then for some inexplicable reason this maya overpowers us.

It is said that once we attain jnana, maya can never touch us again. Then why did it overpower us in the first place (when we were in the state of pure jnana)? And even if we attain atma-jnana, how can we be sure that we will not come under its grips again?

Michael replied:

Here you are making an assumption that Bhagavan never allowed us to make. Why should we assume that we are in the grips of maya? We seem to be, but that does not mean that maya is actually real.

Whenever Bhagavan was asked such questions, he would say: ‘First see whether you are in the grips of maya’. If we investigate the ‘I’ that seems to have been caught by maya, we will find that this ‘I’ is unreal, so its being under the sway of maya is an illusion.

No words will be enough to thank Michael for this article: Ulladu Narpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation. This work and its companion Upadesa Undiyar: Tamil text, transliteration and translation are like collectors' items. It needs to be carefully preserved. Of course we would refer to these regularly, especially whenever we have any doubts about Bhagavan’s teachings.

Someone asked Sri Sadhu Om: ‘Which according to you is the best work of Bhagavan?’ he simply said: Ulladu Narpadu. Michael has explained in more detail what Sri Sadhu Om had conveyed in just one word.

I think the 42 verses of Ulladu Narpadu are like 42 pieces of most precious diamonds. However, though they are available to all, they are hidden inside a heap of most colourful and scented flowers. Therefore until and unless someone lets us know that they are buried inside these bunch of flowers, we would not know about this crest-jewel of Bhagavan’s teachings. The colourful and scented bunch of flowers represents all the other written and recorded teachings of Bhagavan.

Therefore, Sri Sadhu Om and Michael have done a great service to us by pointing out the great importance of Ulladu Narpadu. I think no one else has made this as clear as these two have done. As Michael says, many of the key principles of his teachings are expressed nowhere as clearly and as coherently as they are in these 42 verses.

I was one of those who used to give more importance to books such as Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi over Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Yar? and Upadesa Undiyar. This is how many of the devotees are made to believe. It is recorded that a prominent old time devotee had said that each and every word in Talks is pure gold, and we blindly believed him. However, Michael has broken this myth, and has shown us why we should trust and rely more on Ulladu Narpadu.

I humbly want to add my voice to the choir of praise for Michael’s work both translating and commenting Bhagavan’s essential teachings. My understanding and practice of them changed and grew over time because of his relentless effort to clarify even further what is already clear and simple and yet at times esoteric because of our own ignorance.Michael was (and still is) able to bring forward the subtleties and logic hidden in Bhagavan’s writings with impeccable humility, never taking authorship but always pointing at the source of the teaching, Bhagavan.

Eternally grateful. Thank you Michael.

Oh! and by the way, isn’t that funny that, as he (Michael) always mentions, all the crores of words, articles and commentaries written and spoken are in fact variations on a single composite word, self-attention? It requires a Master to paint such a vast, colorful and meaningful canvas with just one brush and one color!

Michael,many thanks for giving us this translation.May we readers become fit to carefully study and correctly understand this work.These verses may show us the way to salvation by the destruction of the ego that rises as 'I'. May we fully grasp/comprehend the import of Ulladu Narpadu and thus by grace experience our real ever-existing nature shining as 'I-I'.

As many of the other readers have pointed out, this is a very valuable contribution from Michael and will be most useful for all those on the path of ātma-vicāra.

Several weeks of sustained work should have taken place in the background for such an article to emerge (still, it is work in progress, as we understand). Not everything is conducive when such work takes place, especially given the fact that there is some negative criticism against Michael about his life style, in sarcastic and foul language. It suffices to say Michael, with his abilities, could have had a very decent job and kept all his articles and books (and even criticisms!) behind a pay wall. As that did not happen in his case, Bhagavan has chosen him for something important, as some of us would believe, as ‘just a translator’ cannot write with such depth. Some readers expressed the wish that Michael should moderate the comments in his blog. It appears to me Michael was busy with other productive work related to Bhagavan (as always). So we have two examples (Michael and his staunch critics) of how we may use our free will. The choice is ours.

Thank you very much Michael. The translations stay very close to original Tamil verses.

For those sincere devotees who regret not knowing Tamil, it is my feeling that Bhagavan himself has translated this very lovingly into English through Michael.

With this note of thanks, I would like to share some thoughts related to this article in the following series of comments.

The explanations and discussions cited for verses 25 and 26 are 39 and 36, respectively, which shows the importance of these verses, which was pointed out by Michael in the beginning of the article.

We may treat the development of verses leading to verse 26 as somewhat similar to development of a scientific theory leading to a reasonable hypothesis. For example, when Newton’s second law is taught in schools, a series of experiments can be demonstrated leading up to the hypothesis that the net force acting on an object is proportional to its rate of change of momentum.

In a similar way, Bhagavan considers the whole of our experience with the intention of finding the link between world, ego and God. After a series of ‘experiments’ he comes to a reasonable hypothesis that ‘when the ego rises, everything rises; when it goes, everything goes and ego is everything’. A scientific hypothesis is a relation between cause and effect, as in the relation between force (cause) and rate of change of momentum (effect). At first sight it may appear there is only a correlation between the ego and ‘everything else’ and we know that correlation is not causation, even if Bhagavan says ego is the cause of everything. We know that he means ego as the cause of everything as he uses the word karu (which usually means ‘embryo’ but means ‘cause’ in this context) in the kalivenba version of this verse. How do we then reconcile between correlation and causation?

When we consider this situation seriously, we would realize that sometimes a cause simulataneous with its effect would appear to be just correlated [with its effect]. In western philosophy, the idea of cause simultaneous with effect was demonstrated by Immanuel Kant (which we may not go into details here). Bhagavan uses a better approach here. He uses the dream argument (which in western philosophy was also used by Descartes) to demonstrate the cause of everything is the ego (but Descartes did not do that with his own argument). The dream argument states that there is no substantive difference between dream and waking. Therefore, just as the cause of dream is the dreamer (the ego) and everything appears simultaneously with the dreamer in a dream, ego is the cause of everything, in both dream and waking. This he implies in Maharshi’s Gospel (Book 2, Chapter 3, when he discusses ‘invariable concomitance of mind and world’ and put to good use in an unexpected manner by Michael in his excellent article ‘The role of logic in developing a clear, coherent and uncomplicated understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings’ on 28 February 2016).

Like any hypothesis, we cannot be sure if this is true of false, until we test it rigorously. Although Newton’s law happens to be true in most of the situations, a good scientist will keep his options open if it turns out to be wrong during one of the tests. Similarly, we test this hypothesis in verse 26 by the experiment called ātma-vicāra, where the cause is investigated. Bhagavan, having completed this test (we, his devotees, believe he completed it and others may not do so and they are not asked by his devotees to do so) says that we will discover that the ego never existed.

A scientific hypothesis should stop where causal chain stops. In a similar way, the causal link stops with the ego. We cannot ask what causes the ego, as causality itself starts with ego and there is no scope for asking such questions before the ego arises. It is like asking why Newton’s law exists. A scientist may be surprised if he is asked such a question. Bhagavan is also surprised about this arising of ego (when he teaches us through this vivartha mode) when he says, ‘eṇṇē vichchai’ (what a wonder!)’, in the kalivenba version of verse 25 and as atiśaya śakti (wonderful power) in Nāṉ Yār?, fourth paragraph. When devotees asked about it (even in many places in Talks), he would urge them to find out if it arose.

All these discussion do not mean we are pressing science or western philosoply into service, as we are handicapped otherwise. We do not need any scientific or philosophical background to understand what Bhagavan teaches. We simply use the scientific analogy with some arguments from western philosophy for elucidation.

It is also important to differentiate between what Bhagavan says (there never was an ego, which is ajata) and what we are asked to investigate. It is possible to lip-sync with Bhagavan ‘there never was an ego’ and to misunderstand everything Bhagavan said to mean ‘the Self’ [our essential self] creates everything. Proponents of such a view, quite paradoxically, claim to practise ātma-vicāra. This is a paradox because if we lip-sync with Bhagavan ‘there never was an ego’, should we also not pretend to be Bhagavan who never needed any ātma-vicāra? Venkataraman needed it but he never said ‘there never was an ego’. Did he not ask himself ‘who am I?’?

In verse 25, Bhagavan explains the functioning of ego. For example, when he says, uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum (leaving form, it grasps form), such things can be found in our own experience. One may deliberately induce an ‘out of body experience’ (OBE) or it may happen spontaneously for some (although not necessarily) during ātma-vicāra or during a ‘near death experience’ (NDE). Induction can happen by use of drugs like ketamine or by ‘probing’ certains regions of brain in the laboratory.

With some relatively cheap gadgets that do not probe the brain, and without use of any drugs, scientists can also induce this experience in the laboratory. One may find an interesting article at http://www.neuro.ki.se/ehrsson/pdfs/Ehrsson-Science-2007-with-SOM.pdf.

These experiments have surprised scientists that the sense of self or consciousness (by which they mean ego consciousness and not our essential consciouness) is so fluid and it is constructed every moment by the brain (as normally scientists believe mind ‘emerges’ out of brain and no mind exists independent of brain). Although OBE is part of NDE, there is no measurable brain function in NDE, as per majority of the reports, which suggests mind can in fact be further delinked from brain. Even in such cases, those who report NDE say that they were with some subtle body compared to the gross body left over on their death bed (or their ‘near death bed’?).

We do not need such dramatic experiences and clever experiments. What we need is to consider carefully our experiences of waking and dream, as taught by Bhagavan. We may imagine we have considered our experiences carefully. It is almost impossible for us to do, unless assisted by Bhagavan, as mankind’s intellectual journeys into western philosophy, psychology, physics and (more recently) neuro science shows. That is not surprising as science embraces subject-object duality at its core. Pure subject, for science, will be mere unconsciousness and hence not of any interest. Science can investigate only phenomena. But we are interested in the source of all phenomena.

In the simple teaching of Bhagavan, we (as this ego) do leave the current form and grasp another form in a dream (uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum (leaving form, it grasps form)). This should be readily understood by us without any fancy experience. That pure self-awareness persists in sleep without either of these forms and continues in waking and dream, as taught by Bhagavan, is something science will not accept, as we have noted. However, this is most important for someone on the path of ātma-vicāra, which is what is meant by the ‘search’ in verse 25 or the ‘investigation’ in verse 26. For those who have tried sincerely ātma-vicāra, it should be evident that self-awareness is glaringly clear when most of the phenomena recede and lingers in the background even when attention branches out to phenomena. To follow this diligently is the task given to us by Bhagavan.

With persistent practice one can sense (especially when waking up) that the statement ‘uru paṯṟi uṇḍām’ (grasping form it comes into existence) should be correct. This does not mean ‘waking up’ moment is somehow important. We all go through it. But ātma-vicāra at other times would make us notice it more sharply, just like we are likely to remain alert during death only if we have sincerely practised ātma-vicāra in this life. Therefore, ātma-vicāra is a moment to moment practice, leading us to the final exit, which could be any moment.

To sum it up: verses 25 and 26 are most important as they summarize the function of ego and help us to understand the hypothesis put forth by Bhagavan and give us the impetus to test that hypothesis.

Einstein is famous for his Theory of Relativity. But shortly after he had received the Nobel Prize for physics, he wrote (as it appeared in today’s newspaper):

A quiet and modest life brings more joy than a pursuit of success bound with constant unrest [state of dissatisfaction, disturbance, and agitation]. Where there is a will, there’s a way.

This was said by a scientist. Even he somehow knew that all his (or other’s) scientific discoveries will not bring about real happiness in men. These discoveries may make our life easier, it may give us medicines to fight our disease and so on, but these will also increase our unrest. For example, it is these very discoveries will have given us weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore, as Einstein says, a quiet and modest life is conducive to peace and joy (at least in a relative sense). We need to keep our material ambitions to a bare minimum.

Wittgenstein, this is in response to your recent comments. You write, ‘the explanations and discussions cited for verses 25 and 26 are 39 and 36, respectively, which shows the importance of these verses, which was pointed out by Michael in the beginning of the article. We may treat the development of verses leading to verse 26 as somewhat similar to development of a scientific theory leading to a reasonable hypothesis’.

I agree, but then his entire teachings can be taken as a reasonable hypothesis. Of course this bunch of hypothesis is backed up by simple logic and our experience in three states of waking, dream and sleep. As an example, let us consider the hypothesis Bhagavan has given us in verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Consider, except by turning the mind back within [and thereby] completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom [or investigate and know] God by the mind?

What Bhagavan has given here is a very reasonable hypothesis. If God shines within the mind giving light to the mind, we can merge in God only by turning within and subsiding in God. However, others may not agree with this hypothesis. Some of them claim that all paths lead to God. Let them show us how they can lead to God. How can an outward directed effort help us to merge in God, if God shines within us as ‘I’?

We can prove this hypothesis correct if we turn within with single pointed attention. As a consequence if our ego merges within, the hypothesis which Bhagavan has given us will be proved to be correct.

As you quote, Sharma writes in the chapter 8 of Maha Yoga: ‘For even now, in this realm of ignorance, we are sustained by currents — however weak and fitful — of the Happiness of the real Self, trickling through the dense folds of ignorance and sin, in just sufficient amounts to keep us from despair and suicide'.

What he says here is very true. We will surely become mad if such ‘currents’ of happiness are not there within us. At least in sleep we experience pure happiness. Such regular doses of happiness keep us going amidst all the misery, dissatisfaction and despair.

Bhagavan: Various accounts are given in books. But is there creation? Only if there is creation do we have to explain how it came about. We may not know about all these theories but we certainly know that we exist. Why not know the ‘I’ and then see if there is a creation. (DBD p. 132)

My note: According to Bhagavan, creation has never taken place, and therefore all questions about creation are irrelevant. Only thing which is relevant is asking oneself: who has all these doubts about creation? Who am I?

Thus Bhagavan is always shifting our attention away from the seen to the seer. What or who is this seer? When we manage to experience ourself as we really are, we will directly come to know that creation never took place. Creation was our ego's imagination.

power of grace, yes, first thing first. We have to first find out about ourself: who is the knower of this world? If world still exists after we know the knower, we may try and find out about the origin of the world.

According to Bhagavan, once we experience ourself as we actually are, the creator, creation and the act of creation will all merge into ourself, never to reappear again. Who is the creator? It is our ego. What is creation? It is only our mental vision or mental idea. How does creation take place? It takes place due to our outward directed attention or self-negligence: pramada.

If we attend only to ourself by ignoring everything else, we will clearly see that creation was just a creation of our deluded mind. When our mind is annihilated, how can creation remain? The creation arises with our mind and subsides with our mind.

From one of Wittgenstein’s past comments:”[…] It appears to me Michael was busy with other productive work related to Bhagavan (as always). So we have two examples (Michael and his staunch critics) of how we may use our free will. The choice is ours. […]”

No, neither Michael nor his staunch critics did choose what they were doing, it was predetermined and they really had no choice. Why are people here so strongly ignoring or misinterpreting Bhagavan’s statements about predetermination? It must be their prarabdha ;-)

Also, there was the comment of lip-syncing ‘there never was an ego’……. Well, isn’t everything on this blog a “lip-sync” of Bhagavan’s teaching? Michael’s whole work is a lip-sync par-excellence. What is wrong with the part of ‘there was never an ego’? Does that automatically imply that one pretends to be a Jnani? Maybe Annamalai Swami was wrong with his suggestion to always affirm to be Self and never consider to be an ego?

Again, there seems to be a sectarian-like attitude to Bhagavan’s teaching.

Sanjay Lohia,regarding the quoted article of Mountain Path (Deepam 2017), Swami Chinmayananda's commentary on the Hymn to Sri Dakshinamurti, I want to add:"Bhagavan: ...But is there creation ? Only if there is creation, we have to explain how it came about...But that we exist now is certain...The world is created by the 'I' which in its turn rises up from the Self. The riddle of the creation of the world is thus solved if you solve the creation of the 'I'.So I say find your Self.Again , does the world come and ask you "Why do 'I' exist ? How was 'I' created ?"It is you who ask the question. The questioner must establish the relationship between the world and himself. He must admit that the world is his own imagination. Who imagines it ? Let him again find the 'I' and then the Self...There is no creation in the state of realization. When one sees the world, one does not see oneself. When one sees the Self, the world is not seen. So see the Self and realize that there has been no creation."

Michael,mangalam verse 1,linked article of Monday, 24 February 2014 We should meditate only on 'I', not on ideas such as 'I am brahman':

"Therefore the very nature of uḷḷadu or what is is to be aware of itself, so in order to be aware of itself, it does not have to think. In fact, since its nature is just to be and to experience that it is (that is, to experience 'I am'), it is completely devoid of thought, and since it exists within our heart (that is, in the innermost core of ourself) as our heart, it is called 'heart'.""Since thought cannot reach it, in order to meditate upon it we must just be it: that is, we must be without any thought, as it is, experiencing only 'I am'. And since it is what we experience as 'I am', in order to meditate upon it or to experience it we just have to be without thought as 'I am' alone.""Therefore thinking any thought such as 'I am brahman' will only take us away from what brahman actually is, namely the one thought-free self-aware reality that we always experience as 'I am'."

I am surprised that 'ulladu' and the fundamental experience 'I am' could be disturbed by any thought which is only temporary and possibly passing soon.

ulladu-unarvu, if I may,”I am surprised that 'ulladu' and the fundamental experience 'I am' could be disturbed by any thought which is only temporary and possibly passing soon.”

Actually ulladu can never be disturbed, it is from the ego’s viewpoint that we seem to go in and out of it. A screen is never disturbed by the appearance or disappearance of the movie, it is only from the spectator’s point of view that a film seems to start and finish and restart again.

Mouna, greetings,of course my comment is written from the view of the spectating ego.In no way I do doubt your statement about the undefiled intactness of our pure self-awareness, i.e. the screen.Since thoughts are clearly banished in the quoted parts of the linked article1. "...so in order to be aware of itself, it does not have to think."2. "... that is, we must be without any thought, as it is, experiencing only 'I am'. And since it is what we experience as 'I am', in order to meditate upon it or to experience it we just have to be without thought as 'I am' alone." 3. "Therefore thinking any thought such as 'I am brahman' will only take us away from what brahman actually is, namely the one thought-free self-aware reality that we always experience as 'I am'."I referred my astonishment principally back to the incompatibility of actual experience 'I am' with the presence of mere thoughts.

1) I had a hard question which I was struggling with got answered by Michael's essay or2) When I wrote to Michael and his response clarified or 3) When Michael wrote an essay and Wittgenstein commented and elucidated on it.

I have poor understanding of Bhagavan's Bhakti literature. So thanks very much for these translations, Michael. And thanks Wittgenstein for your extensive and helpful comments.

I would also echo something that Wittgenstein said - on "sarcastic and foul language" seen lately on this blog...I see one person doing it regularly. Let me refer to this person as "bee". I thought this bee not liking the smell of this flower called Michael will soon go away and let the other bees like us enjoy the fragrance. It is yet to happen. So I am now wondering that probably the fragrance of Michael will soon overpower this bee.

Well, but that will depend on this bees' Free Will! Or may be not?

Wittgenstein I like your emphasising the point - "Like any hypothesis, we cannot be sure if this is true of false, until we test it rigorously." As long as I cannot convert Bhagavan's teachings and Michael's essays as my own experientially I will not go far.

Do hope to see more of your comments, Wittgenstein, and I entirely second your and others' praise for Michael.

Michael,mangalam verse 2,I refer to the linked article of Thursday, 15 March 2007 Taking refuge at the 'feet' of God "The feet of guru are that which is always shining within you as 'I I'.""The only true refuge or fortress which will protect us from the fear of death and every other form of misery is the innermost core of our own being, which is the real abode of God and which, being the foundation that underlies and supports our mind and everything known by it, is figuratively described as his 'feet'."

I am sitting at the moment at my desk and do feel that shining of the real abode of God only vaguely. Evidently I have to go much deeper. Having not the power and love to complete self-surrender by subsidence of the mind into the heart till now I could not take refuge to the true state of deathlessness or immortality.May Arunachala not stop taking my stubborn ego under his wings.

yuvaraj, yes - if only that "bee" could have "free will". However it is only an illusion when the jiva thinks it could decide what happens in the phenomenal world. There is no free will and there is no destiny. It always comes back to turning within.

Bhagavan himself wanted to leave the ashram and he said he tried several times but his prarabdha let him stay where he was. That's according to Sadhu Natanananda.

Of course that is just a story because what does it matter where a Jnani "goes" in the phenomenal world? The actions of the body of a Jnani is as much part of the script as anything else including the stories of the devotees visiting him and the story of jivas trying to become what they believe they don't are :-)

Michael,verse 1, linjed with the article of Sunday, 15 January 2017What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually are

"When we remain as we actually are, no picture of names and forms (nāma uru cittiram) appears in our awareness, and nor does any seer (pārppāṉ), because as we actually are we are aware of nothing other than ourself as we actually are, so it is only when we rise as this ego that any picture of names and forms appears in our awareness and that we consequently see ourself as the seer of it."" What we actually are is only pure self-awareness, which alone is what is real, so though pure self-awareness is the ultimate substance that appears as both the picture of names and forms and the seer of it, neither the picture of names and forms nor the seer of it are pure self-awareness as it actually is, because they are both mere appearances."

How can I as the seeming ego force out of it the relinquishment of rising ?Will the false awareness i.e. the seeming ego ever abstain from rising ?

Certainly your answer will be : investigate keenly whether there is an ego at all.Or what other method will me keep remaining as I actually am ?

Michael,verse 2,linked with the article of Sunday, 14 June 2009Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase,"...abiding in our own natural state (of pure thought-free self-conscious being) is the highest achievement."I am regrettably far from being able to abide in my natural state of pure thought-free self-conscious being.What to do with such a heap of complete misery ?

One thing one can say for sure, as long as the mind is involved with a process, things are already screwed up. A goal and the notion of achievement is a process of the mind and it will log jam at the outset.

To complain about being stuck or of being not able to go “deep” is the mind. When are we going to learn to ignore the musings of the mind? Sages said that it is necessary to go deep, but when the mind picks that up as a goal it has already shot itself in the foot. In that case it is better to forget about ‘going deep’ than to let oneself torment by another thought. Relax! There is no “how”! To ask or wonder about “how” is again the mind shooting itself in the foot. Don’t make anything a task, just be quiet and leave the mind alone.

Mouna, greetings,the referred statement is not only a "specific thought" but also a sober factual report.My opposite claim - namely to abide (effortlessly and uninterruptedly) in my natural state of pure thought-free self-conscious being - would not be in accordance with the facts. Of course, seen from the absolute standpoint of atma-svarupa there has never arisen any ego. But should we not leave things as they are and not get carried away ?On the other hand you are entirely right in saying that instead of mournful wailing I should always keep trying to follow Bhagavan’s instructions...be well too

Michael,are you open to suggestions ?I was now reading the recent Mountain Path- article of John Grimes KEYWORD "Chaitanya Consciousness-of and Consciousness-as". I am and certainly other readers are interested in the referred subjects as a) reflected consciousnessb) the four functions of the internal organ (antahkarana)c) the antahkarana in conjunction with the sense-organsd) the modes of the minde) the process of perceiving/perception of sense-objects summarised in five steps i)...ii)... iii)...iv)... and v)...May I please dare to ask you to indicate with a list of links to places in this blog where you have possibly already explained that themes or write an new summarising article about them.

One suffers because of the idea that the body, which is never oneself, is ‘I’; suffering is all due to this delusion

Bhagavan was very clear: suffering is a symptom of our ego. The ego is nothing but ‘I am this body' idea. Why does suffering arise? It arises because we leave ourself in pursuit of happiness outside of ourself. In other words, as long as we have desire we will move away from ourself, and as long as we ignore ourself we will suffer. Bhagavan explains this in paragraph 14 of Nan Yar?:

What is called happiness is only svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or actual nature] of ātmā [self]; happiness and ātma-svarūpa [our own actual self] are not different. Ātma-sukha [the happiness of self] alone exists; that alone is real. Happiness is not obtained from any of the objects of the world. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our lack of discrimination. When [our] mind comes out, it experiences unhappiness. In truth, whenever our thoughts [or wishes] are fulfilled, it [our mind] turns back to its proper place [the core of our being, our real self, which is the source from which it arose] and experiences only the happiness of self.

Therefore, happiness is our very nature, but when we rise as an ego we ignore this happiness by latching on to jada, insentient things, which is totally devoid of happiness. We wrongly believe that our material pursuits will give us happiness, but in fact such pursuits are itself misery.

Q: How can you say that suffering is non-existent? I see it everywhere.

Bhagavan: One’s own reality, which shines within everyone as the Heart is itself the ocean of unalloyed bliss. Therefore like the unreal blueness of the sky, misery does not exist in reality but only in mere imagination. Since one’s own reality, which is the sun of jnana that cannot be approached by the dark delusion of ignorance, itself shines as happiness, misery is nothing but an illusion caused by the unreal sense of individuality. In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion. If one scrutinises one’s own Self, which is bliss, there will be no misery at all in one’s life. One suffers because of the idea that the body, which is never oneself, is ‘I’; suffering is all due to this delusion.

My note: Such a simple but profound teaching: ‘Ātma-sukha [the happiness of self] alone exists; that alone is real’. All suffering exists only in our mind, and therefore, when we are able to destroy our mind, we will also destroy all suffering forever.

Sanjay Lohia,you may call suffering and misery as "nothing but an illusion caused by the unreal sense of individuality". Visit a hospital and you will find hardly any department with the inscription "imagination, delusion or ignorance". Likewise you will not see there any department "for suffering which exists only in the mind". If suffering would exist only in the mind all hospitals would have been erected also only in the mind. By inference presumably it is meant that all this world exists only in the mind.

Reading the sentence "In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion." I cannot see the sense in it. Could you please give further explanation in more detail ?

This blog has been a boon for me and I have been reading it for some 4+ years.

At times I read there are some who come to this blog and speak critically of others.All of us are at this blog because of our love for Bhagavan. As humans we are all different, and we all have our own opinons and believes.

If one does not like what a particular person says about ourself or anyone else, simply scroll past that comment and forget about it. Don’t let it bother you. Easier said than done, I realize that, but try not to let the ego have it’s way.

Do we only show love, compassion and respect to those we agree with?

Always try to find the good in people, not the bad. If something is negative, find a way to turn it into a positive. If one cannot say something nice, then its better not to say anything at all.

Ask yourself…could I cause harm to anyone who reads my comment?

I have always found the following to be helpful ~ write your comment in whatever format you use and when done, don’t post it. Get up, take a break, walk around the block, mediate for while, anything, just get away from the computer for a few hours, even overnight. You will almost always find that when you return to the computer that you will edit what you had originally written, and if you are like me I always say to myself …I’m sure glad I did not post that comment or I’m sure glad I did not send that email.

This is causing harm to the individual being blocked from commenting. Could any of us possibly imagine Bhagavan or Jesus ever considering such an action?

It all comes down to love, compassion and respect for our fellow humans.

Helping others is only helping oneself, harming others is only harming oneself.

About this comment….there is no need to respond to my comment. I say this because I won’t be reading comments anyway. As usual, I post a comment and drop off the radar for a few weeks or months. When I do get back to reading this blog I will have no idea where I left a comment anyway.

Food for thought…………

P.S. I’m not very good at writing so please excuse anything that does not make sense, any misspelling or any thing else that seems to be written by an idiot.My apologies to Michael for the off topic comment.

Gargoyle's view "All of us are at this blog because of our love for Bhagavan." is well meaning but a bit blue-eyed. Some commentators love mainly to impose their quite windy opinions to the readers and do not want to admit that this blog is dedicated to discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of our sadguru, Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. Unctuous statements do only turn a deaf ear to that phenomenon.

Savadavar, as recorded in Talks, it was Bhagavan who said: ‘misery is nothing but an illusion caused by the unreal sense of individuality’. Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that this world-appearance is exactly like our dream-world. For example, he says in paragraph 18 of Nan Yar?:

Except that waking is dīrgha [long lasting] and dream is kṣaṇika [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between these two mind-created states]. To the extent to which all the vyavahāras [doings, activities, affairs or occurrences] that happen in waking seem [at this present moment] to be real, to that [same] extent even the vyavahāras that happen in dream seem at that time to be real.

Therefore, if we visit a hospital in our dream, we will find suffering, pain and death happening within that dream hospital to be real. However, when we wake up we will realize that that hospital and all suffering in it was just our imagination.

Likewise, as long as we experience ourself as this person (Savadavar, Sanjay), we will inevitably feel that the world around us is real, and therefore all our suffering is real. But are they real? According to Bhagavan this world is nothing but a dream, and therefore we have to conclude that all the suffering, pain and death we experience is nothing but our imagination. These have never really taken place.

So this world seems to exist, but it exists only in our mind. This is Bhagavan’s clear and emphatic teaching. For example he says in paragraph 4 of Nan Yar?:

What is called ‘mind’ is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary or wonderful power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [our actual self]. It projects [or causes the appearance of] all thoughts. When one sets aside all thoughts and sees, solitarily there is no such thing as ‘mind’; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or fundamental nature] of the mind. Excluding thoughts [or ideas], there is not separately any such thing as ‘world’. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself.

I have highlighted one sentence. Therefore whatever we see, hear, smell, feel and taste is an unreal illusion. As the water seen in a mirage is nothing but an illusion, likewise this world is nothing but an illusion. This world is only experienced by our ego or mind, but this mind itself is the first illusion. Where was this mind in our sleep? Whenever this mind rises it also creates a world, which seems to be real as long as we see it.

Gargoyle, you say, ‘About this comment….there is no need to respond to my comment. I say this because I won’t be reading comments anyway’. This made me think: do we reply to each other or reply only to ourself? I mean if this world is nothing but our own thoughts or ideas, all the questions and answers are taking place only in our mind. So whatever we write here should be treated more of a manana, then replying to each other.

Of course, as long as we experience ourself as person (Gargoyle, Sanjay), we have to admit the existence of others also. So from this perspective, we seem to be corresponding with each other.

You claim: ‘This blog has been a boon for me and I have been reading it for some 4+ years’. Yes, I have also been reading this blog for perhaps 5 or 6 years, and as you can see I am one of the most regular ramblers here. Participation on this blog has become my addiction, but I believe this is helping me get over my other addictions (attachments).

I agree with you when you say, ‘Do we only show love, compassion and respect to those we agree with? Always try to find the good in people, not the bad. […] If one cannot say something nice, then it’s better not to say anything at all’. Bhagavan was the peerless example of this. His love and compassion for all was not only equal but also infinite. He always found good in people. He used to find something worthwhile even in the persons whom we may consider most vile or obnoxious.

You also write: ‘Helping others is only helping oneself, harming others is only harming oneself’. Bhagavan also said in paragraph 19 of Nan Yar?:

All that one gives to others one is giving only to oneself. If [everyone] knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving?

We sometimes feel that Michael should moderate these comments. However, Michael may not have time to carefully read each and every comment, and even if he is reading them, he has shown no inclination to censure or moderate them. Like a true devotee of Bhagavan, Michael let others have their say. Bhagavan’s attitude in such matters can best be illustrated by the following incident. Exactl source of this extract is not known, but I have heard Nochur and Michael cite this story, and therefore this has to be correct:

Even before Bhagavan’s English biography was published, a Malayalam scholar came one day to Bhagavan. As soon as he saw Bhagavan he was inspired to write his biography. So he began to gather information from some local people, asking them, 'Who is this Ramana Maharshi?; 'Where was he born?’ and so on.

Not being familiar that the Self-realization of a Jnani is itself his real greatness, some people imagined that Bhagavan should possess all sorts of supernatural powers (siddhis) and they therefore spread rumors which attributed such powers to him, thinking that they were thereby glorifying him. Bhagavan Ramana taught that all siddhis are as trivial as straw and are to be regarded as treacherous friends by the spiritual aspirant. However, unfortunately, it was only from this type of people that the Malayalam scholar quickly gathered information on Bhagavan. Then, within a day, he edited all his notes and completed writing the biography.

According to his biography Bhagavan was a householder, a lawyer from Madurai who had three children, and he exhibited a number of siddhis. In this way, many untrue incidents were contained in that biography. When he had finished writing it, the scholar brought the biography to Bhagavan.

Bhagavan, who was well versed in Malayalam read the whole biography, stopping only here and there to correct some spelling mistakes, and then returned it to the author without altering even a single statement or idea.

The next day Kunju Swami, a Malayalam devotee, returned to the Asramam and the devotees all eagerly told him, ‘This new devotee has written Bhagavan's biography in Malayalam’. When Kunju Swami saw the many untrue reports written in it, he was unable to bear it. So he brought the biography to Bhagavan and complained, ‘O Bhagavan! Your own handwriting is found here in many places, so you must have seen this. But how can this all be true?’

‘Are all these other things true (pointing to the world), and is this alone false?’ replied Bhagavan with a peaceful smile.

In Bhagavan's view, even the biography we now have, which records his life, is as true as this Malayalam biography. That is to say, in Bhagavan's view, even his birth, his attainment of Self-realization, his renunciation and his life as Jagat-Guru are just as real or unreal as this Malayalam biography!

My note: If this topic of censure and moderation of comments were discussed with Bhagavan, he would have probably said: ‘who is to moderate, whom and how, when all that exists is only oneself? If you moderate our own comments, it would be more than enough’.

Whenever it happens, our final experience of atma-jnana (pure self-awareness) will happen in a split second. It is like falling asleep or waking up from sleep, or the final moment of death. These happen in a split second, likewise even our final experience of atma-jnana will happen in a split second. Michael explained this in his article, Why is atma-vicara necessary?, by the example of preparing a canon for detonation. He writes:

The example of preparing a canon for detonation is very apt. It takes time to prepare it, but when ready it will detonate in an instant. Practising vicara is like patiently preparing a canon: eventually it will lead to perfect clarity of self-awareness, which will immediately destroy the mind forever, and this is like the instantaneous detonation of the carefully prepared canon.

Thus we should be ever vigilant and prepared, because this detonation can happen any moment. We should keep walking, or even run whenever possible, towards our destination (ourself). We never know one final step, and we are at our goal.

What is preventing this detonation of the canon? Michael answered this in one of his emails to me:

It will detonate as soon as we are ready to let it detonate, but not till then. Our unwillingness to let go is the only constraint on Bhagavan detonating it here and now. Our part is just to persevere, and everything else will be taken care of by him.

My note: It is only our wrong choices which are preventing us from reaching our destination, and these wrong choices are our liking to experience things other than ourself. So we need to reverse this process by constantly trying to attend to ourself. Consequently, a moment will come, sooner rather than later, when we will experience the absolute clarity of self-awareness.

At the time of death, it is not the body but the awareness that we fear to lose

At the moment of Bhagavan’s famous ‘death experience’, what sort of fear did he have? Since Venkataraman was highly mature, he had insignificant material attachments at that moment. Therefore when he had this overwhelming fear of death, he didn’t fear to lose his worldly attachments, but he feared to lose himself – that is, he feared that he would lose his very existence or his very awareness. This fear prompted him to turn within and cling to his existence with such great intensity that at that very moment his ego was destroyed.

Bhagavan explained this in the following conversation, as recorded in the book Guru Ramana (p. 39) by S. Cohen:

Q: How can the terrible fear of death be overcome?

Bhagavan: if you trace this fear to the object, the loss of which gives rise to it, you will find that object is not the body, but the mind which functions in it. Many a man would be too glad to be rid of his diseased body and all the problems and inconvenience it creates for him if continued awareness is vouchsafed for him. It is the awareness, the consciousness, and not the body, he fears to lose. Men love existence because it is eternal awareness, which is their own Self. Why not then hold on to the pure awareness right now, while in the body, and be free from all fear?

Pain is inevitable as a result of discarding of vasanas [mental tendencies] which you have had for so long

Our spiritual life will never be plain sailing. There may be extreme highs with extreme lows. There may be periods of bliss and joy along with periods of despair. So our spiritual journey may be like a see-saw. Furthermore, there may be mild or even extreme physical pain, sprain or other similar issues when we embark on serious sadhana.

I say this from direct experience, because I did have pains in my body when I started the practice of self-investigation with earnestness. Of course, this could have been a result of some health issues (and I have quite a few of these), or it could be that I was not practising correctly. However, it could instead be that my bodily pain was the natural consequence of my initiating self-investigation (with earnestness).

Bhagavan also indicated that when we embark on our practice, there could be some bodily discomfort in the initial stages. The following extract taken from the book Crumbs from his Table (p. 36) by R. Swarnagiri expands on this theme:

Q: People practising meditation are said to get new diseases; at any rate, I feel some pain in the back and front of the chest. This is stated to be a test by God. Will Bhagavan explain this and say if it is true?

Bhagavan: There is no Bhagavan outside you and no test is therefore instituted. What you believe to be a test or a new disease resulting from spiritual practice is really the strain that is now brought to play upon your nerves and five senses. The mind which was hitherto operating through the nadis [nerves] to sense external objects, maintaining a link between itself and the organs of perception, is now required to withdraw from the link, and this action of withdrawal naturally causes a strain, a sprain or a snap attendant with pain. Some people call this a disease and some call it a test of God.

All these pains will go if you continue your meditation, bestowing your thought solely on understanding your Self or on Self-realisation. There is no greater remedy than this continuous union with God or atman. Pain is inevitable as a result of discarding of vasanas [mental tendencies] which you have had for a long time.

My question: Did any of you also had pain or extreme bodily discomfort, when you first started practising atma-vichara (self-investigation)?

Yes. In addition there was/is additional emotional discomfort, strange things coming up from the subconsciousness. For me that is going on for quite awhile and it seemed that I did or do something wrong. However also Robert Adams said that pain and emotional turmoil is inevitable (once one has started practicing seriously) and actually a sign that something is happening. He said that vasanas are coming up from the subconsciousness and the discomfort is the destruction of these vasanas.

Hi Sanjay, Personally I have never experienced disease or illness as far as I know with regards being linked to vichara. However I have noticed one change which is before Bhagavan appeared in my life and before vichara I use to have goals like places to go, things to see and people to meet etc. But I find now I am getting more uninterested in the world. My previous goals are of little interest to me now.

I am not depressed just losing interest and spending more time turning within.I am caught in the jaws of the tiger so to speak but unfortunately I still do struggle, I just seem to be struggling less but before I was struggling frantically!!

"Having said all this, I have to say that Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi is one of my favourite books of Bhagavan’s teaching. One can feel the power of Bhagavan’s words and teachings on every page. It may not be exactly what Bhagavan said, but his teachings are simple and clear enough to withstand the occasional embellishment."

I would think that if at all one has supposedly gone up to the level of understanding Ulladhu Narpadhu, in all probability, it could be because of having gone through Talks, not just once, but again and again, and perhaps even after reaching the state of assumption that one has understood Ulladhu Narpadhu very well. Occasionally, if not very often, we find reference to Talks in this blog by both Sri Michael James as well as by others. Sri Nochur Venkataraman refers to Talks very often in his discourses.

Personally, I’ll be careful to draw any causal relationship between pain, atma-vichara or the dissolution of desires and tendencies in all instances. The crucial word of the phrase “attributed” to Bhagavan is the word “inevitable”. As we know, many times He addressed the questioner at the personal level and many times the questioner might have heard something that might have not be what Bhagavan intended to say but was put down on paper through the questioner subjective interpretation. Like the questioner writing down (afterwards) what he/she wanted to hear.For some, self-attention might be causing the “person” having pains, contractions, “getting worth”, accidents, etc. For some others, at the beginning, on the contrary, might mean easing pains, a sense of relaxation, getting softer, openness...

“Things have to be like this when this is like this” is always a double edge knife and has to be treated carefully, otherwise we start to look for “signs” of “awakening” that give the ego more resources to happily satisfy its hunger for phenomena...

”I would think that if at all one has supposedly gone up to the level of understanding Ulladhu Narpadhu, in all probability, it could be because of having gone through Talks, not just once, but again and again, and perhaps even after reaching the state of assumption that one has understood Ulladhu Narpadhu very well.”

Very well put Viswanathan.Many of us started there, and as you rightly imply, it cannot be all wrong, even when passing through the subjective colored prism of the scribe/translator’s memory.As time goes by, it is not that we put the original texts of Bhagavan in a pedestal, it more that deepening our understanding of texts like UN, NY, UU and GVK allow us a little bit more to perceive the differences in Talks.

Hector, you say, ‘I am caught in the jaws of the tiger so to speak but unfortunately I still do struggle, I just seem to be struggling less but before I was struggling frantically!!’ Perhaps the pain and strain Bhagavan talked about was when we ‘struggle frantically’ to get out of the jaws of the tiger. As long as we struggle, the pain is inevitable. It is only when we surrender completely that all our pain and discomfort will cease.

Sanjay Lohia,1. "...Likewise, as long as we experience ourself as this person (Savadavar, Sanjay), we will inevitably feel that the world around us is real, and therefore all our suffering is real. But are they real? According to Bhagavan this world is nothing but a dream, and therefore we have to conclude that all the suffering, pain and death we experience is nothing but our imagination. These have never really taken place."What is the gain to declare our suffering, pain and death as unreal imagination which has never taken place ?That experience is undisputably something unpleasant.2. "Therefore whatever we see, hear, smell, feel and taste is an unreal illusion. As the water seen in a mirage is nothing but an illusion, likewise this world is nothing but an illusion. This world is only experienced by our ego or mind, but this mind itself is the first illusion."3."Whenever this mind rises it also creates a world, which seems to be real as long as we see it."That statements do not remove the fact that this world along with this ego or mind is something unpleasant.4. With reference to my comment of 25 October 2017 at 18:58 :relating to the mentioned sentence "In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion." you did not give further explanation.

Same here. I have become less motivated in worldly affairs. Not sure if it is good or bad. And I am slowly becoming aware of the false beliefs I have been having all this life. It is not because of the practice, but because of repeatedly reading the blog.

It is hard for me to understand some comments made on "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" in order to put Ulladhu Narpadhu on highest pedestal.

-----------------

I appreciate the spirit of your comment and would like to confess that I give more credence to Talks than the other sources. Of course I always keep the criticisms of DG and MJ in mind while reading Talks and trying to understand the teachings better.

In my opinion what Sri Ramana conversations with staunch devotees like Chadwick, Devaraja, TMP, Suri N, etc, etc (apologies for not mentioning all of them) is a real treasure trove because it is, quite literally, revelation.

This is because I think in the realm of revelation spontaneity is paramount and what a man says in his unguarded moments is a direct seeing into the heart of Nature, God, Self, etc, etc.

The more I read about laborious editing by Sri Ramana and sundry talented poets infected by extreme devotional fervor the less convinced I am of what they say.

Sri Ramana himself said something to the effect that nothing would come out of his mouth that could not come have come out of the mouths of the ancient Rishis who first saw the Truth.

I am sorry to state it so boldly but Muruganar's coarse comments about prostitutes and chastity would never have occurred to Sri Ramana. I will leave it at that.

Savadavar, you ask, ‘What is the gain to declare our suffering, pain and death as unreal imagination which has never taken place?’ If we know, even intellectually, that everything we experience is just part of our dream, we will not be overly attached to our suffering. Of course suffering will still remain suffering, but we will have extra incentive to leave all this behind and turn within - after all everything is an illusion, including all our suffering.

Bhagavan said, ‘In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion’. Everything other than ourself, other than atma-svarupa, is an illusion. Bhagavan has made this very clear. So whatever phenomena we experience is an unreal illusion. Bhagavan teaches us this in paragraph 7 of Nan Yar:

What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [our own essential self]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigaḷ [imaginations, fabrications, mental creations or illusory superimpositions] in it, like [the imaginary] silver [seen] in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously.

The following extract, which is not verbatim, is taken from the video: 2017-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 9 (1:13 onwards):

Once, Seshadri Swami was standing at the corner of a street looking at a buffalo, and one of his devotees came up to him and said, ‘Swami, why are looking at the buffalo?’ Seshadri Swami said, ‘You fool, I am not looking at the buffalo; I am looking at brahman. You are buffalo who sees brahman as a buffalo’.

Sanjay Lohia,thank you for your reply.Is it not astonishing that atma-svarupa does not prevent the appearance and disappearance of world ,soul and God ?Presumably that appearance and disappearance are themselves only delusion and illusion and we are deceived only by them.So we seem to be only big buffalos which do not even know their own true nature.But why could brahman have any intent to deveive us or in the worst case take pleasure in seeing us dazzled by that ploys and plays of charades ? Should we not put brahman across our knee ?

Anonymous, Michael has recently unloaded two new videos in his YouTube channel called Sri Ramana Teachings. Please go to the video page of his website and clink on the link Sri Ramana Teachings to access these videos.

Sanjay Lohia,"Everything other than ourself, other than atma-svarupa, is an illusion."Seeing only other things than oneself seems to be a general phenomenon. So one can ask if there has been ever any evolution of mankind. Did we ever leave or climb over the conscious-level of a buffalo ?

Even though this article evidently has been thoroughly proofread and edited, there is one missed (though implicit) word in the English Translation and Explanatory Paraphrase of Verse 17.

For those who do not know themself, for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not themself, ‘I’ is only the extent of the body; for those who have known themself within the body, oneself, ‘I’, shines without limit. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

dikpalaka, when Seshadri Swami said, ‘You fool, I am not looking at the buffalo; I am looking at brahman’, he could be saying the truth, because Seshadri Swami was supposed to be a jnani, and the jnani is formless pure-awareness. If he was formless pure awareness, he could not have seen the form of the buffalo, and therefore he did literally see the buffalo as brahman.

Your question is: ‘if the buffalo is brahman would then the buffalo see Sheshadri also as brahman or only as a buffalo too? In any case a blissfull company...’. We have to become that buffalo to accurately say what it saw. If the buffalo was also a jnani, it would have also seen Seshadri Swami as brahman.

A question may arise: can a buffalo be a jnani? We cannot rule out such a possibility. When Cow Lakshmi passed away, Bhagavan did confirm that she had merged in self, indicating that she had become liberation. So if Cow Lakshmi could be a jnani, so could a buffalo. However, all this is mere speculation.

You also wonder, ‘So one can ask if there has been ever any evolution of mankind. Did we ever leave or climb over the conscious-level of a buffalo?’ Mankind is always in the same state. There will always be a mixture of immature and mature souls. The degree of maturity or immaturity may wary, but overall this mixture will always exist. We are spiritually mature, if we love to attend to ourself and are immature if we don’t have such love.

The mankind as a whole doesn’t climb up or down the consciousness ladder, but individual jivas (souls) do so – in the sense that our consciousness is increasingly purified as we persevere in our sadhana (spiritual practice).

Sanjay Lohia, this is REALLY deep and profound...I don't know what to say.

But I find it disappointing that Bhagavan recognized the cow as a fellow gnani, but could not see anyone else in the whole wide world as another fellow gnani.

"A question may arise: can a buffalo be a jnani? We cannot rule out such a possibility. When Cow Lakshmi passed away, Bhagavan did confirm that she had merged in self, indicating that she had become liberation. So if Cow Lakshmi could be a jnani, so could a buffalo. However, all this is mere speculation."

Anonymous, it is wrong to say that Bhagavan didn’t recognise or acknowledge others as jnanis. He did clearly say that his mother (and perhaps also Palini Swami or someone else) had merged within before she passed away. He also indicated that siddhas and other highly evolved souls did come to his presence, not only in human forms but also in non-human forms.

Of course, from the highest perspective Bhagavan never saw any other sentient being, because all he experienced was himself, and so how could he see another jnani? He is the non-dual, pure-awareness in whose clear view there are no others.

However, should we really be bothered about other jnanis? They may be there or may not be there, how does this knowledge benefit us? Our primary duty is to turn within and see ourself as we really are. As Bhagavan used to say: 'there is only one jnani and you are that (tatvamasi)'.

Anonymous, I think Bhagavan also gave this certificate of liberation to Muruganar. As I can recall, Bhagavan gave hints confirming his liberation, though I do not recall what exactly he said in this regard.

Sanjay Lohia, Muruganar's liberation is clear and definite, beyond any doubt.Muruganar wrote for example in his book "The Shining of my Lord" in chapter "Preliminary Verses" under the heading "What are my qualifications to write these verses ?":13 As a result of worshipping daily with my salutation only the feet of grace of my Lord who exists as my trustworthy companion, my mind became one-pointed. The glorious attainment of the jnana experience reached me, as did the excellent power of singing in an illustrious manner verses suffused with grace.14 The king who transcends both speech and mind granted to me the direct experience [of the Self], along with poetry inspired by divine grace. From then on, glorifying the chintamani [the wish-fulfilling jewel] who destroyed the bewilderment of the mind that had ruined me became my life's sole occupation.15 My Guru Lord, who has the power to grant true jnana, reached and adopted my heart as his temple and stood shining there.....16 As the supreme light of grace, my God reigned over me in the heart, ensuring the complete absence of darkness and its progeny.....17 I did not myself compose these verses. The heart of this bewildered and limitation-bound person blossomed through the power of true jnana. Then that power of jnana, dwelling in my tongue, takes birth as sweet Tamil venba verses possessing the excellence of that jnana.

Under the heading "The subject of my verses":20 The matter expounded on in this work is the jnana experience that arose through divine grace. This [jnana experience] enabled me, a stupid dog wallowing in the state of complete ignorance about the way of redemption, to attain in my heart the certainty of salvation.

Mouna, you said “... for some others, at the beginning, on the contrary, might mean easing pains, a sense of relaxation, getting softer, openness...”

Yes of course, however anybody will and must face quite some unpleasant things along the path, this is a matter of fact. It would be naïve to believe that the path to liberation is a walk in a park, quite the opposite. Even though every character is different we are quite similar in many ways and share similar addictions and attachments.

The “ghost” ego won’t give up that easily and it will test the resolve for liberation many, many times in most unpleasant ways.

Sanjai Lohia, you said "we should not be bothered by other Jnanis" and I can see your point.

But permit me to remind you that you've posted a comment awhile ago where you made clear that you did not believe that Lakshmana Swamy (the guy from David Godman's book 'No mind, I am the Self') is a Jnani because he was not as humble a Murugunar. I believe you also didn't like that he emphasized the importance of a living guru...

Salazar,Sanja’s question was: “Did any of you also had pain or extreme bodily discomfort, when you first started practising atma-vichara (self-investigation)?” (bold signaling is mine)Pain, discomfort, suffering and the like are determined by the person’s prarabdha, and throughout its illusory life.Again, when we “first start”, for some, it could well be “a ride in the park”, but not for others. Later on is a completely and unrelated story.

”The “ghost” ego won’t give up that easily and it will test the resolve for liberation many, many times in most unpleasant ways.”And many pleasant ways also, Salazar... actually the pleasant ones like pleasure, wealth, perfect health, emotional acknowledgement, etc... could be in some cases the most difficult tests to overcome...

Salazar, yes, I did say that many things which Lakshmana Swamy says are not in accord with Bhagavan’s teachings. Like Lakshmana Swamy emphasises the importance of a living guru, but we do not find this emphasis in Bhagavan’s teachings. We do need the teachings of a genuine sadguru, but he need not currently be in his body.

Guru is not the body; he is ourself as we really are. So why do we need a physical guru? Is Bhagavan not present now? If he is absent now, then he is not of much use to us. Only the Guru is ever living, and likewise his teachings are our eternal companion.

Who am I to judge the inner state of Lakshmana Swamy? Did I ever say that he is not a jnani? I never said that, as far as I can remember. Also when or where did I say that Lakshmana Swamy was not as humble as Muruganar? Personal traits of different teachers or guru’s should not be our focus. However, if their teachings are not in accord with Bhagavan’s teachings, we just try to point out the differences (according to our limited understanding). So we are not here to make moral judgments.

Sanjay Lohia,when we call Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi of Annamalai a jnani it seems a likely supposition that he could not at all see anything outside of atma svarupa. Therefore he never has seen anything other than jnana in whatever direction he directed his look.

Hello All,(Caveat, I’ll be extremist and fundamentalist here)Are we still, here in this blog, speaking about who is a jnani and who is not? Really? I thought we were, or at least some of us, seasoned aspirants of some kind that already put all those questions behind.Wasn’t enough Bhagavan’s teachings and sayings and the continuous pounding in our heads by Michael telling us that “there are no jnanis, there is only jnana” or “the jnani is yourself”?I could understand someone that just started in this path asking “is Michael James a jnani?” Because she/he wants to “know” how much to trust his words, but after a while asking if someone is a jnani or not denotes a lack of effort to implement Bhagavan’s teachings in one’s life when it come to relate to “others”...Who really cares if X, Y or Z are jnanis or not after we spent some time with B’s teachings? The least we can do to honor His teachings is to consider “the possibility” that jnana is our essential nature and outside “dream data” like others (being Bhagavan, MJ, DG, Muruganar or the local Swami) is just the contents of ego that in some cases like Bhagavan, proves to be the most useful to wake up.

To paraphrase the famous saying: “not many jnanis, not one jnani, only jnana.”

dikpalaka, yes, Bhagavan is incapable of seeing or experiencing anything other than or apart from itself, because it is the infinite, unbroken, immutable, pure awareness. Since it alone exists, in whichever direction it sees, it sees only himself.

However, to assume that it sees in different directions is not exactly true. It is timeless, spaceless and directionless, because it is non-dual reality. It is the centre which has no circumference.

Salazar,”I was more looking at the tests directly related to the practice of vichara.”I understand what you were saying but for me at least, the only test presented and related to the practice of atma-vichara is oir attention going out or ego rising again.

Sanjay Lohia, I’d have to scroll through all of your past comments on this blog (I’d say the last two years) to find your comment that Lakshmana Swamy is not as humble as Murugunar. I am pretty sure that you’ve said that but since you now have changed your opinion I leave it at that. No need to put you on a spot.

I find it very interesting how vehemently you argue that a physical guru is not necessary. It seems to be a sensitive issue for you. I personally am neutral to this point. So I can see value with a physical guru and also appreciate the “inner guru”. Yes, yes, a physical guru is only there to point to the inner guru, however there are other ramifications.

So, in your opinion, is anything which is not in accord with Bhagavan’s teaching irrelevant? That seems a little bit narrow-minded, don’t you think? I.e. Papaji seemingly may have said things which are not in accord with Bhagavan’s teachings (at least a few individuals seem to have that impression) but I see Papaji’s teachings as a true reflection of Bhagavan even when he may not have used similar concepts. Too bad you never had the chance to be in his presence, I’d say that you’d have changed your opinion about the value of a physical Jnani…

You know that you have to let go of Bhagavan’s teaching eventually, right? His concepts may help you now but if you keep clinging at the ‘meaning’ as you do it will soon become an obstacle rather than an aid. To replace an addiction with another one “seemingly noble” is not helpful at all; it is just an expression of denial.

First people are striving for money and fame, and then they replace that strife with the strife for wisdom and liberation. But in all reality nothing has changed, except that the mind can tell itself that it is now “on the path” or doing something beneficial. And yet it is still the mind just replacing one addiction with another and keeping samsara alive.

Extract (which is not verbatim) from the video: 2017-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 9:

Sometimes Bhagavan used to compare other means of getting rid of the mind to someone trying to bury their own shadow.

A man didn’t like his shadow following him around the whole day, so he dug a big pit, and he was happy when he saw his shadow at the bottom of the pit. So he quickly started filling the pit, but that shadow started climbing out as sooner or quickly as he could fill the pit. So he could never bury his shadow. Trying to get rid of the mind in any way, other than by turning within, is like trying to bury our shadow in a pit. Bhagavan says in paragraph 8 of Nan Yar?:

For the mind to subside [permanently], except vicāraṇā [self-investigation] there are no other adequate means. If made to subside by other means, the mind will remain as if subsided, [but] will emerge again.

So long as our root thought ‘I’ is there, we cannot avoid other thoughts from coming, and these thoughts give us unending troubles and problems. We cannot push them away from us, any more than we can bury our own shadow.

Why the shadow follows us? It is because we are looking at it. Instead of looking at the shadow, we should turn back towards the light. That is, instead of looking at the world and our thoughts, which is just our shadow, we should turn back within to see the light. What is the light that causes the shadow to appear? This is the only way to drive away our shadow.

Mouna, yes and that attention of going out is something which will keep happening until the non-existence of the mind is realized. Therefore it may helpful to describe what will come up during that process where the mind keeps going outwards. The tendency to be drawn into the imaginations of mind will be alive to the very end, "knowing" some of the possibilities may help to refrain from giving them attention ...

Sanjay Lohia,"That is, instead of looking at the world and our thoughts, which is just our shadow, we should turn back within to see the light. What is the light that causes the shadow to appear?"So even the shadow needs light to appear. It seems that the bright light of our inner atma-svarupa radiates its powerful rays to help us keep the mind abiding in the Lord Arunachala's feet.

dikpalaka, yes, shadow cannot appear without a light to cause its appearance. In our case our thoughts and this world cannot appear if there were no light of awareness to cause its appearance.

However, the question is do we need this shadow – that is, do we need our thoughts and this world? Does this shadow benefit us in any way? No, this shadow is of no use to us. It does not actually exist but it seems to be there, and as long as it is there it seems like a ghost, and therefore we are perpetually afraid of this ghost.

However, if we turn towards our original light, the light of pure-awareness, we will find that this shadow – our thoughts and this world never existed in the first place. Therefore, all our fear was meaningless.

Michael,verse 3, in relation to some of your comments on the article of Sunday, 15 February 2015 (Why is it necessary to consider the world unreal?) which you wrote in reply to a friend called Shiba:1. "the fundamental misapprehension that gives rise to the appearance of the world is only the ego, because the ego is nothing but our misapprehension of ourself — that is, our error of experiencing ourself as something that we are not. Having misapprehended or mistaken ourself to be this ego, we expand ourself as the mind and all its thoughts, of which the entire world is just a part."

Our error of experiencing ourself as something that we are not is indeed a big misadventure. That this is at all possible amazes me. The stupid thing is that my amazement does not help further.

2. "When you say that the world ‘is real as Self’, it is important to understand the correct meaning of such a statement. So long as we see the world as such, we are not experiencing ourself as we really are, so contrary to what some people imagine, we can never see the world as ourself. When we see ourself as we really are, there will be no world for us to see."

3. "the jñāni is brahman itself, and brahman never sees the world but only itself. Therefore when it is said that the jñāni sees the world as brahman, it does not mean that he sees the world as such but only that what we see as the world he sees as nothing but brahman, because in his view brahman (himself) alone exists."

Now slowly I begin to grasp why self-investigation is the best remedy to get cured of my biting misapprehension.

dikpalaka, I wrote in my previous comment, ‘yes, shadow cannot appear without a light to cause its appearance. In our case our thoughts and this world cannot appear if there were no light of awareness to cause its appearance’. This may require some clarification.

Our light of pure-awareness is the cause for the appearance of this world, but it is not its efficient cause nor is it its instrumental cause, but pure-awareness is the substantial cause for the appearance of this world. This may need some explanation.

A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists. So who creates this world? It is created by maya, who is the efficient cause of creation.

In other words, our pure self-awareness is just an immutable substratum of light, which just is. Since this world is the projection of Maya (an extraordinary power that exists within the immutable substratum), our original tight doesn’t undergo any transformation even when it is so used, and therefore pure self-awareness is not the creator or cause of this world in true sense.

Sanjay Lohia,this play of shadow and light seems to be rather absurdly.Hopefully we will also find that even our turning away from our original light of pure awareness has "never existed in the first place".

Sir (Sri Michael James), in my previous comment addressed to dikpalaka, I wrote: ‘A painter is the efficient cause of a portrait, his brush is the instrumental cause of it, and the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait’.

However, I am a bit confused now. What exactly is the substantial cause of the portrait? Is it the paint, as I have mentioned, or is it the canvas on which this painting is done? I would appreciate your insight into this. With regards.

dikpalaka, yes, as you say, ‘we will also find that even our turning away from our original light of pure awareness has "never existed in the first place”’.

It seems that we have turned away from the light of pure-awareness, but such turning away is only in the view of the ego, and since the ego does not actually exist (though it seems to exist), this turning away has never actually happened. It is all maya, which is mind-boggling.

Sanjay Lohia,is it not astonishing that maya - as that which is being not - can at all project anything on the ever undefiled screen of our pure self-awareness ?The mind will ever be baffled by that enigmatic mysteriousness. By the way I think you mean original light instead of "tight".

I sit at my table and see an apple on it.How could it happen that I do not see brahman instead of the forms of my body, room, table and apple ? Evidently when I rose as the ego that disaster simultaneously happened that I see that snake (the mentioned forms) instead of the rope (brahman).As I quoted above:"the fundamental misapprehension that gives rise to the appearance of the world is only the ego, because the ego is nothing but our misapprehension of ourself — that is, our error of experiencing ourself as something that we are not. Having misapprehended or mistaken ourself to be this ego, we expand ourself as the mind and all its thoughts, of which the entire world is just a part."

I may repeat what Michael wrote on 16 th February 2015 in reply to Shiba, as mentioned above in my first today comment:

"When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa [our essential self], the world appears. Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa does not appear [as it really is]; when svarūpa appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear’.""“If the mind, which is the cause of all knowledge [other than our fundamental knowledge ‘I am’] and of all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the illusory appearance of a snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake ceases, svarūpa-darśana [experience of our own essential self], which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of this world], will not arise unless perception of the world, which is an imagination [or fabrication], ceases.”

"When you say that the world ‘is real as Self’, it is important to understand the correct meaning of such a statement. So long as we see the world as such, we are not experiencing ourself as we really are, so contrary to what some people imagine, we can never see the world as ourself. When we see ourself as we really are, there will be no world for us to see.

What we now see as this entire appearance of ego and world is actually only ourself, but so long as we experience this appearance, we cannot experience ourself as we actually are. As Bhagavan said in the first passage that I quoted in this article from Maharshi’s Gospel (2002 edition, p. 64), this is aptly illustrated by the snake and rope analogy. So long as we see the snake, we cannot see the rope as it really is, and when we see the rope as it really is, we will no longer see any snake. Likewise, when we experience ourself as we really are, we will no longer see any world."

verse 4,linked article of Saturday, 25 January 20141. "By discovering what 'I' actually is, we will swallow time": "Therefore, in order to experience anything other than itself, the first person (the mind or ego) must first experience itself as a form, which it does by mistaking itself to be a physical body. However, though it now experiences itself as the form of a body, this ego actually has no form of its own, so it depends upon forms for its seeming existence. ..."2. "As Sri Ramana says in verse 25 of உள்ளது நாற்பது (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu)...Therefore, to destroy our present illusion that we are the form of this body, we must examine ourself and thereby discover what this 'I' actually is. If we do so, this ego, which now seems to be 'I', will 'take flight' and cease to exist, after which whatever is really 'I' alone will remain."

So we must urgently learn to make a precise conscious distinction between mere perceiving the body and being deceived by experiencing a mistaken identity. Then we will be able to refrain from fatefully identifying ourself/our real nature with this wrong identity as a body-form.

verse 4,linked article of Friday, 2 May 2014 "Ātma-vicāra: stress and other related issues": "However, since the real form of God is nothing other than 'I' (our own real form, which is not actually a physical or mental form but only the formless and therefore infinite expanse of pure consciousness), if we want to experience his real form as formless, we should attend only to 'I' (which is what Bhagavan describes as 'thinking of your form without thinking'). When we do so, he assures us, we will dissolve and cease to exist as a separate entity, like a salt-doll placed in the ocean...".

When I walk happily on Arunachala Hill I try sometimes to consider/conceive God/Siva as formless (light) albeit I feel the rocks under my feet as material form. However, I succeed not often in such my attempts.

verse 4,evidently we cannot lose our misperception/misapprehension to be a physical body while living in such a body by mere thinking/wishing away that misapprehension.Therefore only most meticulous examination/investigation will bring the desired clarity (hoped-for).

Michael: Bhagavan’s path is so-so-so simple, but we do not understand its clarity. The only way to get this clarity, which is ever shining in our heart, is to turn within – to turn our attention back to ourself – to face ourself. So Bhagavan’s path is the simplest of all paths; it’s the simplest of all philosophies.

Devotee: But it is natural to look outwards…

Michael: Why does it feel natural to look outside? It’s because we experience ourself as the ego. The ego comes into existence by grasping form. It’s the very nature of the ego to look outwards. The ego will dissolve only when it looks within, but is the ego ready to dissolve? Until we are ready to give up everything, this will seem very difficult. It will seem unnatural to look within, because we are not ready to let go.

If you are standing at the edge of a cliff, to fall over the cliff is very easy. But so long as you are clinging to a poll, you are not going to fall over the cliff. You have to be ready to let go. We are not ready to let go, are we? That’s the problem.

Why we are not ready to let go? It’s because we have not understood Bhagavan’s teachings, in spite of all our reading, all our talking about it. We may have understood superficially – at the surface level of our mind – but we don’t have a deep conviction. If we had deep conviction, we would happily let go.

If the ego turns its attention towards itself to know ‘who am I?’ or ‘what am I?’, it is letting go of other things which are its food. So it’s cutting off its nourishment. The ego seems to exist only so long as it’s looking at other things, because only so long as we are looking at other things that we are able to look at ourself as the body.

When we look at ourself alone, if we turn our attention 180 degrees towards ourself, then we are 100% excluding everything else from our awareness, then where is the ego?

The root of everything is the ego. When we attend to the ego, it begins to dissolve. So to the extent we vigilantly, very carefully, look at or attend to ourself, to that extent the ego is dissolved, and along with it all the phenomena are also dissolved.

verse 4,...discover what this 'I' actually is. If we do so, this ego, which now seems to be 'I', will 'take flight' and cease to exist, after which whatever is really 'I' alone will remain.First step: Discovering what this 'I' actually is by meticulous examinationThus: the false ego-body-mind-awareness will take flight and cease to exist.After that: the real 'I' will remain.Sounds very easy but this involves a great deal of effort.Can I manage that or is it beyond me ?In any case: The ego must leave possibly soon.Let's be off. Let's go. Let's get started. There is no more much sand in the upper section of the hour-glass of my life.Come on ! All or nothing.

1) Bhagavan once said this as a joke, but it also has a very deep meaning. He said, ‘People say that in spite of any amount of effort it is impossible to stop thoughts, but I find quite the opposite. In spite of any amount of effort, I find it difficult to think thoughts.

2) So long as we experience ourself as a body, to say ‘I am God’ is meaningless. We have to experience ourself as God, that is, we have to experience what we really are. Saying ‘I am God’ is a lie, because who says it? It is the ego. The ego has to turn its attention back to see what it is, and thereby dissolve in God, and then we are God. Then God alone is.

3) Bhagavan is omniscient. He knows everything, because for him there is only one thing to know, and that is ‘I am’.

4) What Bhagavan teaches us is turning all our beliefs, all our so-called ‘knowledge’, on its head. Bhagavan says, ‘knowledge of multiplicity is ignorance’. He asks, ‘knowing anything other than itself can only be ignorance, can it be knowledge?’ Real knowledge is only pure self-awareness.

Sanjay Lohia,in thinking thoughts I am a master. So Bhagavan could be my disciple.Saying 'I am God' is certainly a lie. But being God is the truth.Knowledge of multiplicity is certainly ignorance. But real knowledge is not our starting point.

I just read my earlier response to R. Vishwanathan's comment about Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi and noticed an omission which I have added and bolded below. ------------In my opinion what Sri Ramana said in conversations with staunch devotees like Chadwick, Devaraja, TMP, Suri N, etc, etc (apologies for not mentioning all of them) is a real treasure trove because it is, quite literally, revelation. -------------Thanks.

Sam, would appreciate your response to this issue... when you find the time.

I for one treasure Talks. I do not find much in that seems like what Bhagavan would not have said or has been misinterpreted or mis-recorded. There are others who seem to be wary of trusting Talks as being exactly what Bhagavan may have said because they are recordings several hours after what transpired in Bhagavan's presence. I guess each to his own. But I have to confess that I do wonder sometimes when I see long conversations between Bhagavan and devotees how it was possible for someone to remember the exact wordings and sequence of the long conversations to be able to record it exactly afterwards.

I am able to understand Sri Ramana's Teachings on the topic of free will much better from the Talks than from his other writings.

For example, Talk 28 is the best description of "free" will that I have come across in all religious philosophy.

Not to sound blasphemous, but I am (sentimentality?) inclined to place more faith in a jnani's spontaneously expressed insight than in his intellectual deliberations. The more time there is to process a thought, the more contaminated it becomes, IMHO.

The spoken word is not the thing, but the written word is worse because it really embalms the "not-thing"!

Agnostic,summa summarum and in the end Bhagavan's teachings are given only to serve one purpose namely to remove our ignorance and to clear things up by clarifying our misunderstandings. Are not we who have a lot of misapprehensions about the reality ?Bhagavan himself did not need any teaching to be taught...

dikpalaka, in one my recent comments I wrote to you, ‘A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists. So who creates this world? It is created by maya, who is the efficient cause of creation’.

A question may arise, ‘If maya or mind is the efficient cause of this world, then what is its instrumental cause?’ Our power of attention is the instrumental cause of all creation. It is only when our ego directs its attention away from itself that this world comes into existence.

So this pramada or self-negligence is the instrumental cause of all creation, whether such creation are our thoughts in our mind or whether it is a seemingly solid world outside, everything is a result of pramada. Who uses this instrument? It is our ego. So the efficient cause of creation can only be the ego.

What Bhagavan has taught us is the quintessence of advaita philosophy. He has refined it by getting rid of many unnecessary concepts.

For example it is said that in sleep what exists is anandamaya-kosha. However, Bhagavan says this cannot be true, because who or what is covered by any of the koshas? It is only the ego. The ego seemingly covers itself by these five sheaths by taking them as itself. So these five sheaths exist only when the ego rises. So, there is no anandamaya-kosha in sleep. What exists in sleep is only pure self-awareness.

Of course Bhagavan sometimes conceded that anandamaya-kosha exists in sleep, because that was all some people were willing to accept. So according to the type of questions people asked that he gave answers. To those who asked deeper questions, he revealed deeper truths.

What is revealed in Ulladu Narpadu is the core or essence of Bhagavan's teachings. Is there any spiritual or philosophical text which can come anywhere near to Ulladu Narpadu? I don’t think so. It contains the real teachings of Bhagavan in its most undiluted form. Why did Bhagavan write Ulladu Narpadu? He wrote it because of the question Muruganar asked him.

Muruganar asked him an extremely simple question. He requested Bhagavan: ‘teach us the nature of reality and the means of attaining it’. That was all Muruganar was interested in. The result was Ulladu Narpadu.

Bhagavan says in Upadesa Undiyar that doing action without desire and for love of God purifies the mind and shows the way to liberation. Worshipping God is not the way to liberation. Going to temples, mosques and churches is not the way to liberation. The way to liberation is to turn within.

But until we have a certain degree of purity of mind, we will not accept that. We will not be willing to accept that God is our very own self. God is what we actually are, and therefore to know God we have no other option but to turn within. As Bhagavan teaches in verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Consider, except by turning the mind back within [and thereby] completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom [or investigate and know] God by the mind?

99% of people will not be willing to accept this simple truth, and therefore they are more attracted to all the outward forms of worship. So we need a certain degree of purity of mind to understand Bhagavan’s teachings, and we can get such purity only if we worship God for God’s sake, and not for the sake of any worldly gain. Only such worship will purify our mind.

Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, for example, worshipped Kali with so much love; he wasn’t expecting anything from Kali. For him Kali was his mother, and he loved her more than anything else. That is pure devotion. Such devotion will surely purify our mind very fast. And when the mind is purified it will become very clear: how can I be anything other than God?

Sanjay Lohia,if the ego is the "efficient cause of creation" of the whole universe then we as the ego can easily get into danger to take off our hat to it and adore or worship the ego because of its gigantic power of creation although it is said that it is only a phantom and does not at all actually exist. Therefore we have with extreme vigilance to be on our guard in order to fall still more under its devilish spell. We are already overburdened enough by having as starting position our misapprehension of our unlimited nature as a limited ego-mind-body consciousness.

Sanjay Lohia,when the mind gets its light by God should we not be much more careful to denigrate or stone it ? As you say we should manage to immerse it completely in God by turning the mind back to its source.

Sanjay Lohia,usually it is said that the body has five sheats:in verse 5 we read:Verse 5: the body is a form consisting of five sheaths, and without such a body has anyone ever perceived any world?"The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body, is there a world? Say, leaving the body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

Explanatory paraphrase: The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and what is described both as the darkness of self-ignorance and as the will, the totality of the ego’s vāsanās (propensities, inclinations or urges), which are the seeds that sprout as its likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Say, without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world?"

When we read now "The ego seemingly covers itself by these five sheaths by taking them as itself. So these five sheaths exist only when the ego rises. So, there is no anandamaya-kosha in sleep. What exists in sleep is only pure self-awareness." our attention is directed now to look at the five sheaths from the viewpoint of the ego.At first glance I do not see any contradiction.

dikpalaka, I thank you for your various comments. Sri Ramakrishna used to say, God-intoxicated people are like drunkards who enjoy their drinks (talk of God) in each other’s company. Likewise, we are also like drunkards who like to share and enjoy Bhagavan’s teachings. We celebrate many festivals in India, but, a devotee rightly said, our Bhagavan is a festival in itself, because we can celebrate him daily (by reading and reflecting on his teachings).

We already worship and adore our ego. Who is there who doesn’t love himself more than anything else? Don’t we all worship this body by giving it a bath, food and clothes on a constant basis? This is how we worship idols in temples, don't we? So we all are idol worships.

Yes, we should be ever vigilant by keeping a watch on this ego. If we leave it free even for a moment, it will continue with its bad habit of attending to things other than itself. We need to keep it in check by being attentively self-aware as much as possible.

When we go to temples and churches, we more often than not get lost in their ceremonies and worship. Of course, these are beneficial, because if done with love it will purify our mind and expose us to higher truths. However, we can also go to temples and churches and sit quietly in meditation or self-investigation. I think many do this.

However, do we really need to go to temples and churches to meditate? If our aim is to turn within, we can do this anywhere and therefore we need not to go to temples for this. Moreover, if we turn within we may not be even aware of the idol or pujas etc. taking place, so what is the use of our being there?

We have to make a choice: should be go to temples or meditate in our own house and workplace. Of course some combine both of these together, and it could be working for them. However, when Bhagavan says that we should do nirantara svarupa-smarana (unceasing self-remembrance), we have to practise amidst all our daily chores, because we cannot be in temples or churches all day long.

Sanjay,”A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists.”

I have a problem (semantic of philosophical one) with the word “likewise”.I think you cannot equate the three part process of painter/brush/paints with maya/pure-awareness/world. Something doesn’t sound right in that extrapolation and I believed is that in the former all three agents are separate and in the latter they are one and indivisible, which is a mayor difference between the two.

I would rather say that maya (or ego) is both the efficient and material (substantial) cause of the world. And I can grant as an interesting statement that the power of suttarivo or pointing awareness (or object creating and oriented consciousness) might be the instrumental part. Vedanta (traditionally) stipulates that Ishwara is both efficient and material cause and maya is His instrument of veiling and proyecting but I would rather go for ego being the E and M causes (let us remember that maya has a “part” of pure awareness because being the chit-jada-granthi) and “ignorance” being the instrumental cause, although all are “He”.

As for your previous question to Michael, paint and canvas (or any support) are the substantial cause of a painting, because a painting couldn’t exist without those two elements, as well as without the maker (painter, even if it’s a computer nowadays!) and the instrument (brush or other).

Sanjay Lohia,"A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists. So who creates this world? It is created by maya, who is the efficient cause of creation."May I give belatedly my remark about your above statement ?:According Sri Bhagavan there is actually no world outside. What we seem to experience as a separate world is only mental fabrication.When we say that pure awareness is the one what really exists how could we then assume that a separate world can exist ? Our world-experience is therefore only illusion created by maya or ego. Hence pure-awareness can be called neither a world-creator nor named as "substantial cause of this world".

Mouna, I agree. The painter, brush and painting/canvas analogy is slightly confusing in our context.

However, I do not agree when you say, ‘I would rather say that maya (or ego) is both the efficient and material (substantial) cause of the world’. maya has no independent material or substance of its own, so it cannot be the substantial cause of this world. What exists is only atma-svarupa. Therefore the real substance of all phenomena (world, thoughts and everything) is only atma-svarupa. At least, this is my understanding.

We can understand this through the rope-snake analogy. We may see a snake lying on the ground, when actually it is just a rope. Who misperceives the rope as a snake? It is our ego, and so the ego is the efficient cause in this case. Why do we misperceive it? It is because we look at it and assume that it is a snake. So the instrumental cause of the appearance of this snake is our attention to this seeming snake.

But what is the substance or material there? Even when we misperceive it as a snake, it is only a rope. It is only because a substance called rope exists there that we can misperceive it as something else. So the substantial or material cause of this snake is only the underlying rope. Likewise the only substance or material underlying this world-appearance is ourself as we really are, because this world seems to exists only when we misperceive ourself as a body. The world does not actually exist. What exists is only this porul [the real substance] or vastu, even when we see this world.

In this context, it would be useful to reflect on verse 7 on Ulladu narpadu:

Though the world and mind arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by the mind. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the base for the appearing and disappearing of the world and mind is poruḷ [the real substance], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].

Sanjay Lohia,as you say, mind and world both do not really exist.This world appearance do not even have any substance or "material underlying".Therefore this porul, vastu or atma-svarupa cannot be really named as substance of our misinterpretation/misapprehension/wrong conclusion/defective vision/incorrect assessment or wrong judgement. However, we can state that atma-svarupa is even the essence of the ego-phantom which is the root of our mistake.Finally one can conclude that your assumption is not wrong...

Mouna, in continuation of our discussion, we can also reflect on paragraph 7 of Nan Yar?:

What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [our own essential self]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigaḷ [imaginations, fabrications, mental creations or illusory superimpositions] in it, like [the imaginary] silver [seen] in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously. Svarūpa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] alone is the world; svarūpa alone is ‘I’ [our ego, soul or individual self]; svarūpa alone is God; everything is śiva-svarūpa [our actual self, which is śiva, the absolute and only truly existing reality].

Bhagavan is again making it abundantly clear that what exists is only atma-svarupa, and therefore it is the only substance that exists. So everything else - that is, world, God and our ego are just like silver seen in a shell – meaning that these have never come into existence, even though they may seem to exist in our deluded view.

Therefore, this paragraph underlines the fact that the substantial or material cause of this world is only ourself as we really are – which is porul (the real and only existing substance) and purna (the infinite whole).

Sanjay, I think you sufficiently made your point about this matter, and I do agree with you in all counts.Still, and this is not about your position in the matter but a doubt that I have in these propositions of efficient, material and instrumental causes, is that for some strange reason I can’t give the snake the luxury of having the rope as its material cause (go figure!, and I recognize this as my own confusion on this specific thread of the teaching). It is a conundrum for my intellect.I do understand the rope as being the underlying existence/awareness of all but my problem is exactly that word “underlying“!!!Here my doubts that I invite you to explore with me:Snake cannot have material cause because it is unrelated with rope (and vice versa). It is only from the observer (maya/ego) point of view (ergo false) that there is a relationship of superimposed illusion. The rope has no snake in the first place. And if we have to adscribe any substantial cause to snake then I feel it should be the ignorance/veiling/avarana that actually permeates all objects. When this ignorance evaporates there is no longer any substance of anything and never was. There is only oneself and oneself only.

From Sanjay Lohia’s previous comment:”[…] that what exists is only atma-svarupa, and therefore it is the only substance that exists.”

Since we are delving into concepts again and into matters the mind cannot grasp (that what really is ‘atma-svarupa’) I’d like to point out that atma-svarupa is not a “substance” or anything else the mind may imagine.

To keep repeating these concepts are an absolute waste of time. Nobody on this blog knows atma-svarupa and just keeps imagining what it could be. Well, the mind can never grasp it. So why keep talking about it? How many times do these concepts have to be repeated until the mind realizes it is chasing its own tail? ;-)

My following reflection is based purely on the ideas of Sri Sadhu Om and Sri Michael James. Therefore, all credit to these ideas should go to them, but if there is any confusion, this should be attributed to me:

Our earliest memories may be from our third year or so. In my dream also I may feel the same. In my dream, I may experience myself as a 20 years old young man, and therefore have memories of my past 17 years or so. But when I wake up, I will realise that that dream was just my own mental creation, and so were all the happenings (including my memories) in that dream. When I wake up I will realise that that dream lasted a very short while, but while I was dreaming it seemed 20 years. So how I can be sure that I am not dreaming now? How can I be sure that my current memories are all true?

In my waking-dream I may seem to be 50 years or so, and I may seem to have memories of my childhood and subsequent years, but how can I be sure that these memories are not my imagination? If this waking state is just another dream, which Bhagavan says it is, then all my current memories are deluding me. These memories come into existence in the present moment, and therefore is nothing but my imagination.

That is why Bhagavan wrote in verse 15 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Past and future stand grasping [or depending upon] the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. [Therefore] the present is the only one [the only time that actually exists]. [Hence] without knowing the truth of the present, trying to know the past or future is like trying to count [calculate or evaluate] without [knowing the value of the unit] one.

So past and future are just ideas that occur in the present moment. This is called yugapat srishti (instantaneous creation): that is, not only do we imagine the present but simultaneously also imagine our past and future.

Bhagavan often used to say, ‘Do not believe what you do not know?’ We believe we were born and will die one day, but since we can never experience our birth or death, why should we believe in such ideas?

Mouna, you say, ‘And if we have to adscribe any substantial cause to snake then I feel it should be the ignorance/veiling/avarana that actually permeates all objects’. But the imagined snake itself is the ignorance, veiling or avarana, because it is only this imagined snake that veils or obscures the rope (ourself as we actually are). Since ignorance, veiling or avarana have no real existence, they also do not have any real substance.

Therefore, there is only one substance, and that is atma-svarupa. How can any imagination ever be a substance? To be a substance a thing must exist.

There is no “present time” either because the present can only be known with the reference point what was before and will be after ‘present’.

The concept of present is as much a pointer and not really true as all of the other concepts. Bhagavan’s teaching, and all the teachings of other sages are meant to be pointers and to be discarded after ‘consumption’. Keeping repeating pointers is a trap of the mind.

Salazar,you write "...Nobody on this blog...and just keeps imagining what it could be ".If nobody keeps imagining what it (atma-svarupa) could be, what is wrong with that ?What is wrong when the mind realizes that it is chasing its own tail only after many repetition of "these concepts" ?Who cares about "absolutely wasting time" ? Does it offend the eye of atma-svarupa when the mind does neither grasp nor know it ?

verse 5,linked article of Tuesday, 20 June 2017 "Concern about fate and free will arises only when our mind is turned away from ourself", section 5,..."according to Bhagavan ... we should investigate this ego to see whether it actually exists even now, because if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that it does not actually exist (just as we would find that an illusory snake does not actually exist if we were to look at it keenly enough to see that it is not a snake but only a rope), and since it does not actually exist, it has never actually risen from sleep. Therefore asking how or why it has risen is like asking how or why the son of a barren woman was born.

The rising of the ego alone causes the appearance of everything else (as Bhagavan implies in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu), so the ego is the first cause, and hence there can be no cause antecedent to it. Therefore trying to find what caused the appearance of the ego is futile. Instead we should just investigate it as keenly as we can and should persevere in doing so until we see the one reality that underlies its false appearance, namely the pure self-awareness that we always actually are."

When I try to squeeze right up to the ego keenly enough I indeed feel there is no better way to lure the ego out of its hiding place and to expose it as a swindler.

[The concept of present is as much a pointer and not really true as all of the other concepts. Bhagavan’s teaching, and all the teachings of other sages are meant to be pointers and to be discarded after ‘consumption’. Keeping repeating pointers is a trap of the mind.]

Yes I agree, just like the concept that everything is preordained and we have no free will. To take it as true and keep saying it is true and trying to convince others it is true is of little use and a trap of the mind just as you say.

[Snake cannot have material cause because it is unrelated with rope (and vice versa). It is only from the observer (maya/ego) point of view (ergo false) that there is a relationship of superimposed illusion. The rope has no snake in the first place. And if we have to adscribe any substantial cause to snake then I feel it should be the ignorance/veiling/avarana that actually permeates all objects. When this ignorance evaporates there is no longer any substance of anything and never was. There is only oneself and oneself only.]

Divine Madman, who says that I am trying to convince others? That is your assumption.

And yes, the mind can come up with all kinds of smart comments like yours, so it goes nicely along with my previous point of mind masturbation.

I find this blog less and less appealing and for some reason prarabdha lets me keep posting here. Eventually it will drop of (?), I guess when my "outward" interest in this blog has exhausted itself :-)

In the traditional jnana marga, one needs to constantly repeat or remember one’s identity with God or brahman (by repeating ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure-consciousness’ and so on). However, Bhagavan made it abundantly clear this is not what he recommends. Such repetitions of ‘I am brahman’ or similar sayings has some benefit, but it also has severe limitations. Bhagavan has clarified this in Ulladu Narpadu through 3 verses, which are:

Verse 29: Without saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of jñāna [the means to experience real knowledge]. Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ is an aid, [but] is it vicāra [self-investigation]?

Verse 32: When the Vēdas declare ‘that is you’, instead of oneself knowing and being oneself, what [am I], thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to deficiency of strength, because that itself always exists as oneself.

Verse 36: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’, will be just a good aid for [reminding and encouraging] us to abide as that. [However] since we abide [or constantly exist] as that, why [should we be] always thinking ‘we are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’ [that is, does one need to always think ‘I am a man’ in order to experience oneself as a man]?

In 2 of these verses Bhagavan says that repeatedly continuously ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ can be an aid to self-investigation. Such repetitions can enable one to purify one’s mind (to some extent), or to develop some intellectual clarity about our true nature. However, its benefits are quite limited, because it cannot help us to surrender our mind to brahman, and without such surrender how can we experience brahman as ourself? So, it will show our lack of viveka (discrimination), if we go on repeating such formulas.

In this context, it may be useful to read texts such as Ribhu Gita (a text which repeatedly reinforces the message: ‘I am not this body, I am that’ in so many ways), but if we want to follow Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, we should very soon switch our loyalties over to Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Yar? and Upadesa Undiyar. Text such as Ribhu Gita can have a limited use, but such texts are like kindergarten stuff in front of Ulladu Narpadu, which, according to Michael, is the PhD level text.

Yes I think Michael's blog is an outward expression of his deep love for Bhagavan. He has said it helps him because constantly reflecting on Bhagavan's teaching helps him cultivate more and more love to turn within. I am very thankful for Michael's outward expression of love for Bhagavan.

"In the traditional jnana marga, one needs to constantly repeat or remember one’s identity with God or brahman (by repeating ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure-consciousness’ and so on)"

You are incorrect.

Bhagavan's comments in Ulladu Narpadu that you cite were to correct a common misperception of sadhakas of what jnana marga is. Bhagavan never disputed the teaching of Shankara and Gaudapada who systematised the teaching of advaita / jnana marga. They are the authority on "traditional jnana marga", and they certainly do not say what you have stated.

I was only saying that with a smile and pointing out you should "maybe" take your own advice :o) But of course you are free to do what ever you like, or maybe not?

[Divine Madman, who says that I am trying to convince others? That is your assumption.]

Your previous comments on this blog?

[And yes, the mind can come up with all kinds of smart comments like yours, so it goes nicely along with my previous point of mind masturbation.]

Is this not a bit like the pot calling the kettle black Salazar? :o) Maybe you should point that high-powered finger of perception back at yourself?

[I find this blog less and less appealing and for some reason prarabdha lets me keep posting here. Eventually it will drop of (?), I guess when my "outward" interest in this blog has exhausted itself :-)

Do you think your prarabdha will absolutely determine this Salazar? Are you 100% sure this concept you have acquired is the truth?Have you always believed this? Have you believed it your whole life? Where and when did you learn this concept?

The same questions can of course be directed to concepts I think maybe true. But I am uncertain and cannot turn them into facts. How could I possibly know for certain?

I maybe wrong but I think Bhagavan never asked us to believe anything he said, instead he encouraged us to look and find out for ourself.

So maybe all the elaborate concepts we take to be true are nothing but white lies to encourage us to turn within and find out for ourself. But who will find out? :o)

Take for example another concept Bhagavan taught eka-jiva vada. What are your thoughts on this concept is it right or wrong? Is it absolutely true or undeniably false?

There are countless concepts Salazar. They could trap us as you say especially if we focus to much on the concept itself compared to where it is pointing.

With regards whether you decide to leave this blog or not. Who cares? What does it matter? Of course the same can be said of me. So please don't take offense :o)

Not believing in the glory of our own soul is what the Vedanta calls atheism, says Swami Vivekananda

When I wrote, ‘In the traditional jnana marga, one needs to constantly repeat or remember one’s identity with God or brahman (by repeating ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure-consciousness’ and so on)’, what I meant was that this was (or even ‘is’) the prevalent practice of jnana marga. As you say, it is for this very reason that Bhagavan had to write three verses in Ulladu Narpadu in order to clarify this ancient path.

Of course, the practice of atma-vichara was not started by Bhagavan, but was certainly rediscovered by Bhagavan. Among the other sources I know, Bhagavad Gita and Sankara definitely talk about the need and the method of atma-vichara. However, no sage other than Bhagavan has focused all their teachings around the paramount need to investigate only ‘I’. Bhagavan is unique because he rediscovered the true jnana marga and was relentless in teaching the same.

Take any famous guru before or even during the life time of Bhagavan. Did they teach Bhagavan’s jnana marga? I started this comment by a quotation by Swami Vivekananda only to show what was prevalent or the customary practice of jnana–marga. As Vivekanada says we need to believe in the glory of our soul [self]. This was how one practiced jnana marga by repeatedly asserting that we are the all-powerful and all-knowing atman and so on. Vivekananda gave many speeches famous on jnana marga in the west and in India. But as far as I know, he hardly spoke about the need or practice of self-investigation.

You say, ‘Bhagavan never disputed the teaching of Shankara and Gaudapada who systematised the teaching of advaita / jnana marga. They are the authority on "traditional jnana marga". I agree. Bhagavan, at least, completely agreed with Sankara’s teachings, because I do not know much about Gaudapada. I this Dakshinamurti, Sankara and Bhagavan are all known exponents of the real or genuine jnana marga (atma-vichara), whereas many others teach and practise this path as they understand it (however perfect or imperfect this may be).

"The urge to find oneself is a sign that you are getting ready. The impulse always comes from within. Unless your time has come, you will have neither the desire nor the strength to go for self-enquiry whole-heartedly." --- Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That

Sanjay,Please notice that in all verses quoted by Bhagavan there is the word “thinking”:V29-“Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], ...”V32-“instead of oneself knowing and being oneself, what [am I], thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to deficiency of strength, ...”V-36”If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’,...”

As per my understanding, Bhagavan is clearly implicating here that just the mere thinking “I am That”, “I am Brahman”, etc... is not abiding as That. A little bit the same as the detractors of Bhagavan’s teachings imply that Bhagavan’s Path is repeating “Who Am I” constantly as a mantra only intellectually (thinking) when Bhagavan clearly indicated that it is not a mantra, that Who am I is the question which triggers the mind to turn inwards.

The same happened to Nisargadatta, whom trusted his teacher completely when he told him that he (Nisargadatta) was Brahman and then used that phrase to continuously “look at himself”... there is a difference in “thinking” I am Brahman and use those words to investigate or abide in that fact.

Mouna, yes, in the so called jnana magra, they repeatedly think: I am not this body, I am pure atman or brahman or whatever. As you point out, these are all mental thoughts and since thinking is an action, they can never give us liberation. Bhagavan teaches us this in verse 2 of Upadesa Undiyar:

The fruit of action having perished [remains] as seed [and thereby] it causes [one] to fall in the ocean of action. [Therefore] it [action] does not give liberation.

Therefore, no amount of such soham repetitions can help us to experience ourself as we really are (namely, brahman). Who repeats these formulas? It is the ego, and therefore this ego will be kept alive by such repetitions. We have to give up all thinking, and turn our full attention on ourself. This is the practical import of the Upanishadic mahavakya 'That you are'.

If I am brahman, I need to turn my full attention within to know what this ‘I’ actually is. Therefore, to repeat soham and so forth is a wrong application of this teaching. Of course, as Bhagavan says, such repetitions can be an aid, but it is an aid which we can easily do away within.

Yes, ‘who am I?’ is not a mantra. When Bhagavan asks us find out ‘who am I?’, he doesn’t expect us to repeatedly question ‘who am I?’ Such questioning is not the real vichara. We need to investigate ‘who am I?’, and for that we need to turn our entire attention within to directly see this 'I' as it actually is. Thoughts are our hindrances, so why should we think any thoughts? We can use such verbal questioning to a limited extent as an aid (as a reminder to turn our attention within), but it is again a totally dispensable aid.

My point was, Sanjay, that any of the “formulas” (being “I am Brahman”, “Who am I” or Not this, not this) when practiced and understood correctly finish in the same “place”, i.e. abidance in being or in other words, oneself.

Vivekananda was a great whirlwind that set the stage for resurgence of interest in vedanta in India and abroad. If you have ever read him, you would know that he never taught blind faith or repetition. He taught men to be free, to think for themselves, and to free themselves of the shackles of their conditioning, their fears, their desires, their selfishness.

As such he was a wonderful precursor to Bhagavan and his teaching of atma vichara. It is unnecessary to dismiss one, to honour the other.

Michael,verse 5,"English translation: The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body, is there a world? Say, leaving the body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

Explanatory paraphrase: The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and what is described both as the darkness of self-ignorance and as the will, the totality of the ego’s vāsanās (propensities, inclinations or urges), which are the seeds that sprout as its likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Say, without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world?"

In which way is the ego included in the five sheaths ?

linked article of Thursday, 5 May 2016 The person we seem to be is a form composed of five sheaths:"Therefore whatever person or body we seem to be is a package consisting of these five sheaths or coverings, which appear as soon as our ego rises and disappear as soon as it subsides. Among these five sheaths, the only one that remains unchanged so long as our ego survives is the ānandamaya-kōśa, which is the darkness of pramāda or self-negligence, and until it is destroyed by keen self-attentiveness, it will always give rise to the appearance of the other four sheaths, which are constantly undergoing change. Therefore whatever person we seem to be in this or in any other dream is a very fleeting and insubstantial thing, which seems to be given substance only by our ego, whose nature is to be self-negligent."

Venkat, I agree when you say, ‘Vivekananda was a great whirlwind that set the stage for resurgence of interest in vedanta in India and abroad’.

You say, ‘He taught men to be free, to think for themselves, and to free themselves of the shackles of their conditioning, their fears, their desires, their selfishness’. Yes, but who has these shackles of conditioning? Who has these fears, desires and selfishness? It is our ego. This is where the teachings of Bhagavan are so useful. He not only points to the root cause of all our defects and problems, but also gives us the simple and direct path to get rid of this defect.

Yes, I agree. Vivekananada’s teachings are a precursor to Bhagavan’s core teachings. Constant reflection on the glory on one’s true nature will purify our mind and may motivate us to turn without to experience ourself as we really are – so that we can directly experience our own glory.

Therefore, you rightly imply that all teachings have their usefulness. But having been exposed to Bhagavan’s simple but extremely radical teachings, we are blinded by it. We cannot, therefore, look beyond his teachings, so we at times may sound like Ramana fanatics, but we are happy to be one!

Venkat, I wrote: ‘Vivekananada’s teachings are a precursor to Bhagavan’s core teachings. Constant reflection on the glory on one’s true nature will purify our mind and may motivate us to turn without to experience ourself as we really are – so that we can directly experience our own glory’.

Sorry, ‘without’ should have been ‘within’. We are already experts at turning without, so it would be foolishness if we turn more without!

Mouna, our destinies are fixed: by this I mean both, our present destiny in this world and our final destiny. We (the ego) have risen from ourself, and we will sooner or later merge in ourself – there can be no doubt here.

So whether we repeat any formulas or practise self-investigation, whether we are a Hitler or a Gandhi, eventually we will all merge in God. We are like the birds flying in the sky. Sooner or later, they will return to the ground.

However, the point is if we want to return to our source in the quickest time, vichara in the the way. I may wish to go to London from India. I may decide to walk all the way to London, in which case it may take me, perhaps, one or two years to reach London, or I may decide to fly, in which case in will take me about 10 to 12 hours. Bhagavan teaches us the relative superiority of the path of self-investigation in verse 8 of Upadesa Undiyar:

Rather than anya-bhāva [meditation in which God is considered to be other than I], ananya-bhāva, in which he is [considered to be none other than] I, is certainly the best among all [practices of bhakti and forms or varieties of meditation].

I am just reading Letters from Sri Ramanashram. I just read this passage this morning, relating to how one finds a true guru.

Bhagavan: If you want to perceive the true Guru swarupa, you must first learn to look upon the whole universe as Guru rupam. One must have the Gurubhavam towards all living beings . . . First of all know your own real swarupam.

The youth was not satisfied. He started out with a list of great men, and pointed out their defects, asking how can they be looked upon as Gurus?

Bhagavan tolerates any amount of decrying of himself, but cannot tolerate even a little fault-finding of others. He asked with some impatience: "Oho! You have been asked to know your own Self, but instead you have started finding fault with others. It is enough if you correct your own faults. Those people can take care of their faults. It looks as if they cannot attain salvation unless they obtain your certificate first."

He went on to say: "Dattatreya said that the whole world was his Guru. It seems that he asked a hunter which way he should go, but the latter ignored his question as he was intent upon his aim to shoot a bird above. Dattatreya saluted him saying 'You are my Guru! Though killing the bird is bad, keeping your aim so steadfast in shooting the arrow as to ignore my query is good, thereby teaching me that I should keep my mind steadfast and fixed on Ishwara.'"

Venkat, thanks for this sharing. Your last paragraph has a very good message:

He [Bhagavan] went on to say: "Dattatreya said that the whole world was his Guru. It seems that he asked a hunter which way he should go, but the latter ignored his question as he was intent upon his aim to shoot a bird above. Dattatreya saluted him saying 'You are my Guru! Though killing the bird is bad, keeping your aim so steadfast in shooting the arrow as to ignore my query is good, thereby teaching me that I should keep my mind steadfast and fixed on Ishwara.'"

We should be fully convinced of the spiritual-path that we have chosen, and stick to it with all our might – taking the example of this hunter. What is the bird we want to kill? Obviously our only aim is to merge in God or ourself. We have to be relentless in our practice – there is no other easy way.

Sir (Sri Michael James), ‘the eye itself’ quotes from one of your article, where you say:

Among these five sheaths, the only one that remains unchanged so long as our ego survives is the ānandamaya-kōśa, which is the darkness of pramāda or self-negligence, and until it is destroyed by keen self-attentiveness, it will always give rise to the appearance of the other four sheaths, which are constantly undergoing change.

My question is: If the only sheath ‘that remains unchanged so long as our ego survives is the ānandamaya-kōśa, which is the darkness of pramāda or self-negligence’, then why is this anandamaya-kosa called a kosa (sheath)? If this sheath is one with our ego or an integral part of our ego (that is, if the 'ego' cannot be called a 'ego' without this ‘kosa’), why is it after all called a sheath? So if we go by this logic, we should have only four sheaths: a physical structure, life, mind and intellect.

"Since [our] body, mind, intellect, life and darkness [the seeming absence of knowledge that we experience in sleep] are all jada [inconscient] and asat [unreal or non-existent], [they are] not 'I', which is [chit or consciousness and] sat [being or reality]."

"Once we have thus understood that our body, our mind and all our other adjuncts are not our real self, we should ignore them. Instead of wasting our time and energy examining or thinking about them or anything else that is not our real self, we should direct all our energy and effort into scrutinising only ourself — our essential self-conscious being, which we always experience as 'I am' — because we can know who or what we really are only by keenly scrutinising or attending to our own real and essential self."

R. Viswanathan, I appreciate your last comment which says that we should mot waste our time and energy on thinking about or analyzing these pancha kosas, because they are after all asat (not real) and jada (insentient) objects. We should instead spend our entire time and energy on thinking about ourself (that is, on reading and reflecting on Bhagavan's teachings), or better still investigating ourself. Point well taken.

Even to accept Bhagavan’s teachings we need to have certain degree of vairagya. If we are still in love with this world, we are not going to find Bhagavan’s teachings agreeable. We will be unwilling to accept that this world is absolutely unreal.

In one of the verses of Guru Vachaka Kovai, Bhagavan said very graphically and strongly:

Those who take the world to be real is like an infatuated lover who tries to foist chastity on a prostitute.

If someone is madly in love with a prostitute, he would imagine that this prostitute is the purest and most chaste girl in the world. He will not be willing to accept that this girl is just a prostitute, and therefore cannot be faithful to only one partner. Same way, because we are infatuated with this world, we are reluctant to accept that this world is unreal.

So Bhagavan is emphasising in so many ways the unreality of this world, because the one who projects this world, namely the ego, is itself unreal. But most people are unwilling to accept it, and Bhagavan doesn’t force us to accept it.

Sanjay Lohia,do you not behave a bit hypocritically/innocently ? Can we really expect that a prostitute is under the vow of chastity ?Do we not rather willingly/with pleasure give preferential treatment to the contrary behaviour of the girl ?

… Only that which shines without [ever] appearing or disappearing as the space [or base] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [our] mind [is] porul [the true substance, essence or absolute reality], which is the whole [the infinite totality of all that is]....The real being is only our own being, because our being is self-conscious, whereas the seeming being or existence of every other thing is known only by us, and is therefore dependent upon us. Since our being is self-conscious, it is a perfectly non-dual consciousness, and hence it is not dependent upon any other thing either to be or to be known to be. Being completely independent, it is free from all forms of limitation, all conditions and all relativity. It is therefore the one infinite and absolute reality.

In this verse of Guru Vachaka Kovai the word that I have translated as 'being' is unmai, which usually means 'truth' or 'reality', but which etymologically means 'is'-ness or 'am'-ness. Since the real being or 'am'-ness is self-conscious, it is not an objective form of being, but is the one infinite reality that underlies and supports the appearance of all objectivity or duality. It is the fundamental consciousness that makes the appearance of all other things possible.

Since our mind, our body, this world and every other conceivable thing depend upon our non-dual self-conscious being, and since they all appear and disappear, they are all mere imaginary appearances, and the sole reality that underlies and supports their appearance is only our own being or consciousness. In other words, the one substance that appears as everything is only our own essential consciousness, 'I am'.

Whereas every other thing is only relatively real, being a mere imagination, our own consciousness is the one and only absolute reality. In essence, therefore, everything is only our own consciousness. Hence our consciousness alone is real. Other than it, nothing truly exists. This is the final conclusion to which Sri Ramana leads us.

However, understanding theoretically that everything is only our own consciousness is not an end in itself. Sri Ramana leads us to this conclusion in order to convince us that the only means by which we can experience the absolute reality is to experience ourself as the infinite non-dual consciousness of being that we really are. In order to experience ourself thus, we must divert our attention away from all other things, and focus it wholly and exclusively upon ourself — that is, upon our own self-conscious being, which we always experience as 'I am'.

Our present knowledge of duality or otherness is what obstructs us from experiencing our own consciousness as the adjunct-free and absolutely non-dual self-consciousness that it truly ever is. Since our knowledge of duality arises only when we imagine ourself to be a body, we cannot experience ourself as the infinite, undivided, non-dual and absolute reality so long as we experience the seeming existence of any other thing.

In order to remove our imaginary knowledge of duality, we must cease to imagine ourself to be this or any other body, and in order to cease imagining ourself thus, we must know ourself as we really are. Our mind rises, imagining itself to be a body and thereby experiencing things that appear to be other than itself, only because of our self-ignorance, and hence it will be destroyed only by true self-knowledge.

Just as a rope appears to be a snake without ever ceasing to be a rope, so our non-dual self-consciousness 'I am', which is the one absolute reality, appears as our mind and all the duality experienced by our mind without ever ceasing to be what it really is."

'So whether we repeat any formulas or practise self-investigation, whether we are a Hitler or a Gandhi, eventually we will all merge in God. We are like the birds flying in the sky. Sooner or later, they will return to the ground."

I am not so sure about that as long as the illusion of “I” (ego) keeps “apparently” popping up. This illusory status of our misplaced identity comes from “times immemorial” and will continue through “times immemorial” unless we completely reverse the flow from the outside to the inside and question (or investigate) “ITs“ reality.Since the ghostly ego feeds on itself by itself there is no reason why it should, by itself, terminates its self-deluded hallucination with itself.Again, unless we profit from the “cracks on the wall” that Bhagavan pointed us within the illusion, nothing will happen by itself...

R Viswanathan,thanks for pointing to Michael's article of Monday, 26 February 2007Our body, mind and other adjuncts are not 'I' .The final passage reads:"Our real consciousness is only our 'being consciousness' — our essential self-consciousness 'I am'. Our mind or 'knowing consciousness' is merely an unreal form of consciousness, which exists only in its own imagination, and which is therefore experienced only by itself, and not by our real 'being consciousness'. Since the imaginary rising of this unreal 'knowing consciousness' is the cloud that seemingly obscures our real 'being consciousness', preventing us from experiencing it as it really is, let us now proceed to examine the nature of this unreal 'knowing consciousness' — our own self-deceptive mind.

Though our ultimate aim, as we discussed above, is to ignore our mind and to attend only to our own true self, which is the reality that underlies it, we will nevertheless derive great benefit from examining the nature of our mind more deeply and thereby understanding it more clearly. There are two main reasons for this:

The first and most important reason is that it is essential that we should understand and be firmly convinced of the fact that our mind is unreal and is therefore not our true self or 'I' — our essential and real form of consciousness. Since our mind is an impostor who deludes us into mistaking it to be ourself, we must be able to see through its self-deceptive nature in order to recognise our real self, which underlies its false appearance, just as a rope underlies the false appearance of an imaginary snake.

The second reason is that when we try to scrutinise our real self, the only obstacle that will actually stand in our way will be our own mind. Since our mind is the primary enemy that will oppose and obstruct all our efforts to know our real self, we should understand this enemy correctly in order to use it to our advantage and to avoid falling a prey to all its subtle and self-delusive tricks. In particular, we should understand the unreality and insubstantiality of our mind, because only then will we be truly convinced of the fact that the only means to overcome it and all its self-delusive tricks is to ignore it by attending only to our real underlying consciousness — our essential non-dual self-consciousness 'I am'."

dikpalaka,how can the unreal mind in its self-deluded nature and view - as an impostor - ever recognise the real self ? The recommended attention "only to our real underlying consciousness - our essential non-dual self-consciousness 'I am' proves possibly to be just the very self-delusive trick of the ego.Hopefully I am mistaken/my mind is wrong !

Naraka, you bring up a very deep point about innocence and hypocrisy but I feel this blog is not the proper place to discuss such matters.

Searching for a similie, this same poet who has earlier dismissed fame, women and wealth now "expands" his interest and attention to chastity and prostitution.

Personally I try to keep clear of the pathological side of Advaita from Ramanasramam, purely out of respect for Bhagavan. But he was a man too, incarnated in a human body and I find I cannot agree with him on everything.

The culture of the time and place contains, I think, valuable information about what was said, and written.

Mouna, we will surely get back to our source, whatever effort we make or do not make. As I said earlier, what will differ is the time taken to merge back. For example, if we repeat formulas it may take us 30 to 40 births, whereas if we practise self-investigation we may reach our goal in 2 to 3 births. If we are a Hitler it may take us perhaps 300 – 400 births, whereas if we a Gandhi it will take us perhaps 2 to 3 births. Who better to elaborate on this than Sri Sadhu Om. He explains this graphically in The Path of Sri Ramana (chp. 2, page 53, pp. 53-58). This comment is 3 parts:

The nature of water is to run down. The water of the ocean stands there itself as a vast mass. The ocean is the lowest place on earth. Therefore, the water in the ocean has no place to run down. But, when water is evaporated by the sun and transformed into clouds, it never stands still in the sky. Driven away by the winds to mountain tops, cooled and transformed into pure water, it runs. As per the nature of water it again starts flowing down seeking for its source in waterfalls, gathers into many streams, runs down to lower places as river and finally merges again into its source, the ocean. In no way it can be stopped till it reaches its source, the ocean. Though it may flow into many channels and irrigate fields or be collected in lakes and tanks or be stopped by springs and wells, it will not remain there for long; for, it evaporates again, is transformed into clouds and tries to reach its source as before! The efforts that we observe as in the life of jeevas, individual souls, are exactly like this!

The source of all jeevas, not only humans but of all creatures is the Supreme Thing (Brahman). The innumerable souls living in innumerable globes which, because of an indefinable wondrous power appear to be separated from their source, are ever hurrying back to the Supreme, their source. Just as running down towards the lowest place is the nature of water, the effort observed in jeevas in the form of thoughts, speech and actions to return to their source, the Supreme, is verily the nature of jeevas. Hence the aim of all jeevas is to return to their source, Brahman.

But the rain water while coursing down from the hill-tops, does not run straight towards the ocean. It fills any pool or pit it meets, overflows it and runs down in any direction to the next lower one, according to the characteristics of the land. It does not even know that it is going to the ocean. In the same way, jeevas engage themselves according to their tastes into one activity after another with no clear understanding of the final aim of their efforts. The rain water cannot help but be engaged in the only activity it can perform according to its nature, i.e., running down to lower places. Whether it knows the way or not it will certainly reach the ocean soon or later; for, it cannot stop permanently anywhere on its way. So also, jeevas cannot help but long for happiness, because such is their nature. Therefore they engage themselves into the only activity they can perform, i.e., the fulfilment of their immediate desires. Whether they are aware or not that the result of all their efforts is attaining their source, Brahman. They certainly will attain even if it is only after many crores of cycles of creations (Re-birth) [highlighted by me].

As we have described above, the water in the clouds evaporated from the ocean, after once raining on the hill-tops, does not run immediately back into the ocean in one run as a river. On its way it is again evaporated, and again floats in the form of clouds and when cooled down it again takes the form of water. This is its rebirth. Is it not? So also, before it reaches its source, Brahman, the jeeva takes different bodies again and again. Each time it makes efforts in many directions and every time when the body once taken wears out and dies, the jeeva takes another body. This is its rebirth.

The efforts in the form of activities of the jeeva are like the efforts in the form of the running of the water. Such efforts will never cease, not even for a second until the jeeva reaches its source. Just as water, in spite of any amount of obstacles standing on its way will wind its way about again and again and will reach the next deep place, so also the jeeva, in spite of any amount of obstacles encountered in its life, persists in making efforts in the forms of actions (karmas).

Just as the nature of water is aiming at the lowest place, the jeeva, on account of its nature which is nothing but love for happiness, is always working with mind, speech and body. This love for happiness – the jeeva’s nature, in its highly refined state, becomes the Supreme Love (Para Bhakti) which leads it to the Supreme Thing, because that Supreme Thing is nothing but an unlimited ocean of Bliss. Yet, the movement of the water running down from the hilltops appears to be arrested when the water reaches a nearby pool. There, also the movement is going on, but in a different direction – the water no longer runs down but rises up. It seems then that the very nature of water, i.e., running down, is changed into rising up (evaporating). So also, on account of some enjoyment gained in life (including enjoyment here or in other worlds), the nature of the jeeva, i.e., love for happiness and making efforts towards it, seems to be changed to a state of contentment where there is no effort, i.e., the nature of Brahman. But, just as the water has to start running down again when the pool is full, the jeeva also, has to start making effort again in so many ways he wishes, to attain perfect happiness, because the enjoyments gained here and in other worlds as the fruit of his actions (karmas) cannot satisfy him for long.

Until he reaches the goal, the Supreme Thing (Sat-Chit-Ananda) which is limitless, never-decreasing, ever-brimming over, perfect Bliss, no trivial enjoyment can stop the effort seen as the struggle of life in the jeeva and make him keep still. Just as the rain water becomes motionless, effortless and is at rest as soon as it reaches the ocean, so also when the jeeva reaches the Supreme Thing, it loses its jeeva nature, becomes effortless and as one who has accomplished everything, it regains the nature of Brahman – Eternal Peace.

“Since his mind form is thus destroyed, and since he is established in the Supreme Truth, for that great Yogi there is not even a single karma to do. For, He has attained His Natural State!” – Upadesha Undiyar, verse 15.

Let us suppose that the rain water streaming down from the hill-top before it is evaporated, joins a big river ever flowing into the ocean, it reaches the ocean - the source, avoiding all kinds of tribulation and delay. In the same way, the Sages are the ever-flowing Divine Rivers that take the jeeva directly to the Supreme Thing without tribulations. The paths traced by the running of these Divine Rivers are the True Faiths now existing on earth. If one takes one’s course through one of these Paths till its very end, one will reach the Supreme Thing, one’s Source and Aim and will attain Peace. Each one of these Faiths refines the love for happiness in the individual and courses it directly to the Goal. This direct path of the refining of the love for happiness, is the Path of Love (Bhakti Marga). The purpose of those Faiths is to advise and encourage humanity: “O man, all your efforts are in view of your happiness only. The perfect form of your happiness is Bliss, the Supreme State. Do not stop on the way deluded by the glamour of anything else. Awake, arise, stop not in your efforts along the right channel till you reach your state of perfect Bliss, or the real God.” When the effort in the form of karmas, which is the nature of jeevas is brought under control and regulated, itself it becomes a spiritual practice (Atma Sadhana), the love for the Supreme Thing. Hence the very best effort that one can make is to love the Supreme. This is well told in the following verse of Bhagavan Sri Ramana:

“The water showered by the clouds risen up from the sea, will not stop, though obstructed till it reaches the sea-abode. Likewise, the embodied soul rises from Thee and will not stop till it reaches Thee, although it wanders here and there through so many paths that come its way (or) it takes to. The bird, though, flying here and there Love or Bhakti 57 into the vast sky, has no stay there. The place of rest (for the bird) is nothing but the earth. It is bound to go back the way it came. So also, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will join Thee, the Ocean of Bliss, Oh Aruna Hill!”

Mouna, there is a typo in the last paragraph of previous comment (its 3rd and last installment). It should read:

“The water showered by the clouds risen up from the sea, will not stop, though obstructed till it reaches the sea-abode. Likewise, the embodied soul rises from Thee and will not stop till it reaches Thee, although it wanders here and there through so many paths that come its way (or) it takes to. The bird, though, flying here and there into the vast sky, has no stay there. The place of rest (for the bird) is nothing but the earth. It is bound to go back the way it came. So also, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will join Thee, the Ocean of Bliss, Oh Aruna Hill!”

- Sri Arunachala Ashtakam, Verse 8

There was an extra ‘Love or Bhakti 57’ inserted in one of its sentences courtesy poor copy-paste job.

Sanjay Lohia,thanks for quoting Sri Sadhu Om's Path of Sri Ramana, part two.In the last paragraph, the line beginning with "Love or Bhakti 57".These words and numbers are obviously not part of the text but only the heading of the page (57).

Sanjay Lohia,"Likewise, the embodied soul rises from Thee and will not stop till it reaches Thee, although it wanders here and there through so many paths that come its way (or) it takes to.""So also, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will join Thee, the Ocean of Bliss, Oh Aruna Hill!"Ocean of bliss, why should it have been my own fault that you did not prevent me from rising ?Are you not conscious of having done any wrong ?Are you really entirely blameless ? Were you actually in no way responsible for the accident of my rising ? You are looking at me with an air of innocence. However, it does not help me further that I cannot believe/buy your (story and) protestation of innocence.

Mouna, why is it inevitable that we will reach our source, and that we will not remain dangling somewhere on the way? It is because more that our effort, Bhagavan is also working overtime by supporting our source-ward journey, and Bhagavan cannot fail.

Though we are acting in many ways, but, as Sadhu Om says, we have no clear understanding of the final aim. We are looking for happiness, but are making our efforts in the wrong direction. It is here that Bhagavan’s role comes into the picture. He shows us the error of our ways, and keeps up on track. How? Michael explains this in his video: 2017-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 10:

Michael: Bhagavan is dwelling in the hearts of each one of us and is slowly-slowly purifying our mind – giving us various experiences through our prarabdha, which is given to us to make us dejected with the external world. So after many trials and tribulations, we will somehow be willing to listen to Bhagavan, and thus turn within.

So Bhagavan is infinitely patient. He will allow us to go whichever path we want to, because he knows eventually when we are ready for it, we will come back to the only path to salvation. Salvation is the annihilation of the ego, and we need to turn within to see the reality of our ego – this is salvation. Extremely simple!

My note: We make efforts through various karmas (actions), whereas Bhagavan is making unceasing effort through akarma (by remaining without action). By his mere presence in our heart, he is providing us with all the help we need to get back to our source. So we should proceed with the firm faith that Bhagavan is our helmsman, and that he will surely take us to our destination.

First of all thank you for your well constructed and well meant “article”.I do agree that when the “turn” in understanding within the dream happens by Bhagavan’s grace there are strong chances that the ego’s edifice will start crumbling down and will, inevitably and eventually, be completely erased, although the timing is uncertain (now, or maybe a million lifetimes from now).What I said I wasn’t sure about what you wrote at the beginning is that you were saying “all jeevas” (from Ghandi to Hitler to “us all”) will eventually self-realize!There are no “jeevas” except the one that is identified with a character now reading or writing these lines. Do all characters in your dream last night, including you, self-realize after you woke up? Or did it mean that ego continued its journey into another dream, the “waking” one? and will continue projecting jeevas all around and feeding on that illusion...I see the language used in Sadhu Om and Bhagavan’s writings, to my understanding, as a concession to apparent aspirants within the dream to continue making efforts that eventually will bear fruits with the help of grace.No jeeva (ego) ever realizes, because realization is the dissolution of the illusion of being a jeeva in the first place (and that there are other jeevas around “me”).

In the final analysis I do understand what you wrote, the intention behind it and the “truth” within it, but at a certain point we can’t afford to rely anymore in the assurance that eventually “we” will all get there no matter what (it sounds as the promise of paradise for christians that only have to believe that Jesus is their savior) because if we investigate properly, the understanding starts to shine through that there are no and never will be a “we” neither a “there”, only “this”and “here”.

Sanjay Lohia,the question if, why and how we ever left our source remains always unanswered.When it is said that "By his mere presence in our heart, he is providing us with all the help we need to get back to our source" I direct the obvious question to Bhagavan why he did not provide all the help not to rise as an ego at all.Evidently there is no correct answer at all but only speculation.But many people feel instinctively that they have lost their "real home perhaps paradise" because they are not completly happy even when they are healthy and live relatively in a carefree manner.So it is not surprising that we are looking for perfect happiness in many ways."Bhagavan is dwelling in the hearts of each one of us". One may believe it or not.What we know undeniably is merely that we exist or at least seem to exist. Otherwise we would not be aware of us and the surroundings. For example we would not be able to read, think and write on an internet blog.Because of the evident absence of knowing our real nature (perhaps of unclouded happiness) it suggests itself that we follow the advice of a real sage - not a pseudo-sage. Nobody can talk me into believing that Bhagavan is not a real sage. So I too endeavour to obtain the right self-knowledge by keeping firm faith to Bhagavan Arunachala to the best of my ability.

Mouna, thanks for your response. Your question was, why do we talk about many jeevas (egos), when Bhagavan has told us that there is only one ego? But is this our direct experience? Don’t we experience many egos around us? Bhagavan did tell us that ‘there is only one ego, and you are that’, but he also told us that we should not believe in anything which we do not directly experience? Do you experience only one ego or many egos around you? I, for sure, experience many egos around me.

According to Bhagavan, even this one ego doesn’t actually exist. So if we assume that this one ego does having have a seeming existence, why not assume that other egos also seem to exist?

As long as we take our body to be ourself, we will also experience a world outside filled with other egos. How can we avoid that? Should we bring advaita in our vyavahara (day-to-day life)? If I meet you, can I tell you, ‘Mouna, you are just my mental creation, and therefore there is no use talking to you’? Obviously not! I will interact with you taking both of us (Mouna and Sanjay) to be real, won’t I?

In Bhagavan’s view there is no world, no egos, nothing; there is only himself. However, as you say, he did concede for our sake that a world does seem to exist, and that other egos do seem to exist. However, he also made it clear that they do not really exist. He starts the 1st verse of Ulladu Narpadu by saying. ‘Because we see the world…’ So Bhagavan’s entire teachings are based on the assumption that a world and all the egos in it do seem to exist, at least as long as this one ego sees them.

Articles Discussing the Philosophy and Practice of the Spiritual Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana

Bhagavan Sri Ramana

About This Blog

Welcome to this blog, which is an extension of my main website, Happiness of Being, and which is dedicated to discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of our sadguru, Bhagavan Sri Ramana.

This blog is a growing archive of articles that I have written from time to time containing my translations of verses and other passages from the writings of Sri Ramana and his closest disciples, particularly Sri Muruganar and Sri Sadhu Om, my recordings of some of the explanations that I heard from Sri Sadhu Om, and my own musings about the philosophy, science and art of true self-knowledge as taught by Sri Ramana.

All the articles in this blog are also clearly indexed in two sections further down in this left margin, firstly according to date in reverse chronological order under the heading Article Archive, and secondly in greater detail according to subject arranged alphabetically under the heading Index of Topics.

Search this blog

The search box at the top left-hand corner of this page will only search for words in the articles, not in the comments, so if you want to search this entire blog, including the comments, you can use the following search box, which will do a Google search and return all the results in a separate tab:

Recent Comments

Feed Subscription Links

If you would like to be updated whenever any new article or comment is posted on this blog, you can right-click on either or both of the links below, select ‘Copy link address’ or an equivalent option, and then paste the address (URL) into your feed reader:

If you do not already use a feed reader, and if your browser is Google Chrome, you can install the following extension to it: RSS Feed Reader for Chrome. This will add an icon to the toolbar of your browser, which you can click on to add either or both the feed URLs above, and then whenever a new article or comment is posted here, at the bottom corner of the icon a number will display or the existing number will increment.

Sri Ramana Teachings on Facebook

An alternative way to be updated whenever any new article or comment by Michael is posted on this blog is to visit Sri Ramana Teachings, a public Facebook page where links to them or copies of them will be posted, and if you have a Facebook account you can like it and choose to receive notifications.

If you would like to be notified by YouTube via email whenever any new video is added to this channel, you can subscribe to it either by clicking on Subscribe to Sri Ramana Teachings or by visiting Sri Ramana Teachings and clicking on the ‘Subscribe’ button that you will see in the upper right-hand corner just under the banner showing Arunachala hill.

Audio copies of many of these videos are available on MediaFire in a folder called Discussions with Michael James, where they can either be listened to online or downloaded as MP3 files.

Support this blog

If you would like to support me to continue writing for this blog and doing other related work, you may contribute to my living expenses by clicking on this button:

Until December 2015 I was able to carrying on writing this blog without needing to accept any of the kind offers of financial support that I received from friends and well-wishers, but I eventually reached a point where I seemed to have no option but to accept whatever support may be offered. Writing articles for this blog and replying to comments and emails asking questions about Bhagavan’s teachings is my full-time occupation (and one that I do solely for the love of this subject), so I have no other job and I receive only a small pension and some royalties from my book sales, which amount to far less than I need for rent, food and other essential expenses, so any financial help that any of you may be able to offer would be much appreciated.

However, I would like to emphasise that this blog and whatever else I write about Bhagavan’s teachings is still intended to be an entirely free service, because I believe his teachings are too valuable to be sold and should not be used for financial gain, so any contributions to me should be entirely voluntary and no one should feel any compulsion to contribute. I am sure that most of you have your own financial difficulties and constraints, because having given us the true wealth of his teachings, Bhagavan generally does not bestow material wealth on those of us who aspire to follow the path he has shown us, and because he has made us understand that money and material gain are not the aim or purpose of our life. Therefore please do not try to contribute anything more than you can comfortably afford, and if you are unable to contribute anything, please do not feel bad about it, because ultimately it is up to Bhagavan to decide how (or if) he wants to provide for my material needs, and I am sure he will take care of me in one way or another (whether or not I like the way he chooses).